Given recent reports that a Montreal-based company has captured data on one million Canadians who it says have engaged in unauthorized file sharing, it seemed like it was only a matter of time before widespread file sharing lawsuits came to Canada. It now appears that those lawsuits are one step closer as TekSavvy, a leading independent ISP, has announced that it has received a motion seeking the names and contact information of thousands of customers (legal documents here). To TekSavvy’s credit, the company insists that it will not provide subscriber information without a court order and it has sent notices to affected customers.

The notifications have generated considerable online discussion with some recipients indicating that they have been wrongly targeted. Others wonder what comes next. As I suggested in my posts on this issue, the next steps likely include the following:

1. The Federal Court will hold a hearing next week on the question of whether it should order the disclosure of the customer information. Subscribers affected by the proposed order may contest the motion and others might appear to ensure that privacy issues are fully considered.

2. Should the court order the disclosure of the subscriber information, prior experience suggests that Voltage will follow with legal demand letters offering settle before filing a copyright infringement lawsuit. The letter will likely indicate that the subscriber could face thousands in liability (though there is now a cap of $5000 in liability for non-commercial infringement with a judge able to award as little as $100). Some subscribers may choose to pay in order to settle, while others – particularly those who believe the claims are inaccurate or those looking at the government’s recent copyright reforms that discouraged such lawsuits – will reject the offer.

3. The big question is whether Voltage will proceed with actual lawsuits for those that refuse to settle. It is certainly within its rights to do so, however, the government has expressed concern with “the threat of major penalties that hang over Canadians who infringe copyright for non-commercial purposes.” As I described in detail in a recent column, Canada’s statutory damages rules now distinguish:

between commercial infringement (which still carries liability of up to $20,000 per infringement) and non-commercial infringement, which now features a maximum liability of $5,000 for all infringements. While $5,000 is still very expensive for a downloaded movie, the law permits judges to award damages as low as $100 in such cases. In fact, the law instructs judges to consider “in the case of infringements for non-commercial purposes, the need for an award to be proportionate to the infringements, in consideration of the hardship the award may cause to the defendant, whether the infringement was for private purposes or not, and the impact of the infringements on the plaintiff.”

The new statutory damages rules took effect in early November and would apply to these lawsuits. Voltage could seek actual damages rather than statutory damages, but those would likely be even lower than $100 for the download of a single movie. All of this could lead to clogged courts as Voltage spends thousands of dollars in lawsuits in the hopes of recovering hundreds from alleged copyright infringers.

As you see, apart from the now infamous “Hurt Locker”, they seem to be purveyors of mediocre-to-poor cinematic fares. They are even responsible for a rushed job on the Osama mission – undoubtedly to beat out the official “Zero Dark Thirty” film.

Could it be that their work has no cultural merit, and therefore is faring quite badly, so now they’re trying to come up with alternative ways to MAKE some extra cash?

When I look at that list, I can’t even imagine that I’d want to see any of those titles, even if they were offered to me for free.

$5000 CapDoes the $5000 cap apply to all claims against an individual over a time period? Or can a movie studio or multiple plaintiffs make separate claims, each with possible liability of up to $5000?

VPN timeI think it’s time for any Canadian who takes their privacy seriously to start routing all their traffic (copyright infringing or otherwise) through a VPN for added security. There are many options available and most providers have a policy of keeping zero logs.

5 years ago this article appeared ..the Notice & Notice program in use by Canadian ISPs seems to have had very little to no effect considering the significant rise Canadian borne file sharing that has occurred.

Maybe with fraud related crimes, such as piracy, the message will be come more clearer as the industries seeking to protect their copyrights move forward in their initiatives.

Its pretty obvious financial penalties must be implemented, and from these news reports, will be implemented to the fullest extent.

Costs?If a case went to court, and the defendant lost and was subject to say $100 in statutory damages, would he also be subject to court costs and the costs of the plaintiff’s no doubt expensive lawyer? I was under the impression we had a “loser pay” system in Canada, hence the question.

Re: Notice and noticeTo the obvious content industry shill who posted the “notice and notice” above: Are customers considered liable if the ISPs did not give them any such notices over the last three years?

Also, Mr. Geist, you were asked a really good question: are the statutory damages enforceable retroactively?

Fight itIf I were targeted I would refuse any settlement. I think if enough people did, it would clog the courts up and then maybe they’ll realize what a stupid idea it is to clog them up over people doing what is essentially the digital version of copying a VHS tape. Non-commercial infringement needs to be discouraged in other ways, not through extortion.

1. The non-commercial statutory damages rules apply to all infringements that occurred prior to the date of the lawsuit. Other copyright owners are barred from filing separate lawsuits that rely on non-commercial statutory damages.

2. Given that the lawsuit was filed with the new reforms in effect, I believe that the new caps would apply, even though the alleged infringement took place earlier.

3. Costs are subject to a decision of the court. It is entirely possible that the judge would refuse to order additional costs on the defendant given the current state of Canadian copyright law which sought to discourage these lawsuits.

@Menno Siebach“Maybe with fraud related crimes, such as piracy, [..].”

Show me the fraud. I don’t see people claiming to be the author of a digitally copied work.

Also copying is undeniably not theft (look up theft in a dictionary), so it also isn’t “piracy.” Calling people “pirates” to imply theft is disingenuous. No one’s out anything except the hope to monopolize on non-profit distribution and private communication, which is precisely what many people don’t agree with. Social behaviors reflect that huge numbers of people simply don’t support non-commercial distribution monopolies. Obla dee obla da, life goes on…

Also, lobbying for a thing doesn’t suddenly make it moral. That’s why people often call lobbyists shills: shill’s are associated with con-artists (pun intended).

Question“1. The non-commercial statutory damages rules apply to all infringements that occurred prior to the date of the lawsuit. Other copyright owners are barred from filing separate lawsuits that rely on non-commercial statutory damages.”

If I read this correctly, does this mean that further lawsuits for the same infringement may occur under non-commercial ACTUAL damages? There seems to be a lot of interpretation by many people as to what all this truly means. It also would then seem that there are several ways to collect damages thereby circumventing the non-commercial cap.

I wonder what happens when someone targeted winds up being a child or senior, as in the US and other countries when this has happened. Does Canada stand up and do something about it or do we just go ahead and “make examples” of them too? As someone mentioned, an IP address does not equate to a single human being in most cases and it is impossible to target just one. I’m pretty sure it would be possible to download in a shopping mall on a portable device and never get caught. There are just so many ways this can go, it’s impossible to see 5 feet in front of this…

importantI think this point is the most important by far when thinking about what actually will come from all this in the very near future…

“1. The Federal Court will hold a hearing next week on the question of whether it should order the disclosure of the customer information. Subscribers affected by the proposed order may contest the motion and others might appear to ensure that privacy issues are fully considered.”

Depending on what interpretation judges have on the law, this will shape it ultimately. Someone will need to pick a side sooner or later. What I mean to say is, if rejected, who would bother filing another lawsuit? If everyone ordered uncovered to their accuser, open the flood gates, one would assume.

I think though, these companies looking to sue are not dumb. They are well aware of the law and the caps in place. They must have ways around it or be waiting to come down with some sort of loophole allowing larger decisions on their part for less money spend on theirs.

If the sight of $$$$ wasn’t fueling their blind train they’d just send the letters requesting $25 per movie. I bet you anything 1/2 of the people would pony up the $25. Rinse and repeat…

Now say I go ahead and pay them and send in a letter saying “Here’s the extortion amount you requested so you wouldn’t take me to count and ruin my life” Once they cash the cheque can I then charge them with extortion and take them to court and have them prove that the IP was actually me?

another question…Would any of these lawsuit possibilities wind up giving someone criminal charges/convictions? Or are they strictly civil lawsuits where the worst that could happen is a fine and all is forgotten? Can an individual be charged criminally for this? That would be the real life threatening fear if so.

Any thoughts on…Any thoughts on why they are seeking damages of $10,000?
Any chance they will trying to collect under non-commercial damages? What is the difference between commercial and non-commercial liability?

…One other point is they are also seeking punitive damages of $10K. So as Michael points out, this will really determine the courts opinion (if it ever goes there) as to how far these cases should go.

@ end user.. According to the criminal code you could. You wouldn’t even have to pay them first.

Criminal Code of Canada http://yourlaws.ca/criminal-code-canada/346-extortion
“346. (1) Every one commits extortion who, without reasonable justification or excuse and with intent to obtain anything, by threats, accusations, menaces or violence induces or attempts to induce any person, whether or not he is the person threatened, accused or menaced or to whom violence is shown, to do anything or cause anything to be done.”

But in the end you are in the same place. The ultimate burden of proof would be on voltage pictures to prove you violated their rights. I mean ultimate in the case of extortion as you would easily be able to prove they accused you, but the question is then, was it justified/true which is their defence.

So which court case to do you want to fight?

Two things I think we will want to find out/see in the near term is.

1. How far do the courts want to interpret the law as Michael suggests
2. A definitive precedent on does a person == IP

I suppose a fallout of #2 should a person != an IP is who capable is the account holder / IP holder to the actions of those connected to their networks.

Certainly there are technical levels of interpretation but what is completely unknown is the courts. Sometimes they are not in sync (like our government) with society. Sometimes with surprise, they are.

@ Menno Siebach“Its pretty obvious financial penalties must be implemented, and from these news reports, will be implemented to the fullest extent.”

After reading that Voltage Pictures has filed to seek an injunction, statutory damages, an accounting of all profits from the defendants’ wrongful activities, damages for interference with economic relations and unjust enrichment, aggravated, exemplary and punitive damages in the amount of $10,000.00, cost of the action on a substantial indemnity basis, plus, applicable taxes and such further and other relief as the court deems just.

I agree with you Menno Siebach.
This will be a very interesting case to follow.

extortionWow! $10,000 in punitive damages and special damages as well, eh? Well, good luck with that. I’m guessing if they get the subscriber info they will use these “claims” to scare as many people as possible into paying what I’m guessing will be a $2-3k extortion ‘settlement’, then they will crawl back into their holes.

I wonder if they might be setting themselves up for a class action lawsuit in return.

SettlementSo the cap applies to non-commercial statutory damage claims. Assuming one went ahead with the settlement to avoid the possibility of further damages awarded such as court fees, and exemplary/aggravated (whatever they are).. are they then still liable for any previous infringements?
If that is the case, it seems to me that on all fronts it makes more sense to take the case to court and settle it all there once and for all…

damages@Jim R
The way I understand the law, no. It’s very easy to misinterpret. It says max cap of $5k is for all works non-commercially infringed under statutory (mandatory) limits. In other words, if Voltage doesn’t want to go to the trouble of proving to a court of law what the actual damages an individual has accrued are, then they can rely on statutory limits set by the law. This, and guidance from the lawmakers would seem to indicate that judges are influenced to stay towards the $100 end of the 100-5000 range. If however the accuser wishes to challenge actual damages, they may do so and that range is higher than $5k.

Now the intent of the law becomes much more clear. The gov’t is trying to still protect copyright holders but at the same time make them work hard (by proving actual damages) if they want to sue for large amounts of money. The “easy” lawsuits where all they do is see your IP downloading stuff and that’s it, they just duplicate infringers thousands of times and sue using statutory damages won’t allow them to get more than $5k. There are methods such as actual though to get more, but they need to work more in order to use them.

The problem I think for downloaders is that there are several companies, like Canipre schemeing ways of doing the work for them to make lawsuits a reality. It’s a business, it truly is a business. Someone stands to make money or none of this would happen period.

It’s all scare tactics folks, if this ever went to trial I expect that the result would be a fairly low award. Once that precedent is set it would be game over for them. This is not the USA, we do not have a litigious culture.

Stand up to these bullies (for these are the schoolyard milk money pocket shakers, now grown) and they will fold.

@ CrockettThe Rightful owners are exercising their legal Rights and you reduce them to nothing more than “schoolyard milk money pocket shakers”, really?
To the best of my knowledge the company has already filed and begun due process; “scare tactic”? ummmm

Voltage Pictures does not own Canadian RightsVoltage Pictures do not own the Canadian Rights to these movies. They are NOT the Canadian Distributor for these Motion Pictures, Case dismissed!
also these movies were released prior to the new Canadian copyright act!

This is highly unlikely, especially with the government guidance to the courts; “in the case of infringements for non-commercial purposes, the need for an award to be proportionate to the infringements”.

The sole purpose of such statements, Peter, is to scare people into coughing up settlement money. This has been voltage’s tactics in the USA which have been an overall a failure and reviled by the legal system. They make unmemorable films so this is their ‘Plan B’.

Scare people into giving you money with threats you really don’t intend to go through with? Yup, I’d call that a shakedown now that the milk money has run out.

@ Crockett You say: “Yes, this is an extortion racket, legal or not. That is why the Canadian government put the $5000 cap in place to begin with, to discourage this type of trolling.”

Odd, our understanding of the Stat cap was an attempt to be fair?, if you understood it to be a means to discourage Rights holders from exercising their legal rights, so be it.

You say: “@PeterP “To the best of my knowledge the company has already filed and begun due process”

Show me the papers then, I would love to see this go to court! Then we can have a precedent set (the last thing they want), and we can laugh as they go scurrying back under their rock.”

I’m not comfortable spoon-feeding grown-ups Crockett, the court documents are publicly available to anyone who wants to read them.

You then go on to say: “@PeterP “Voltage is within its legal rights to claim further damage awards, i.e. aggravated, exemplary and punitive damages, court costs …”

This is highly unlikely, especially with the government guidance to the courts; “in the case of infringements for non-commercial purposes, the need for an award to be proportionate to the infringements”. ”

What’s “highly unlikely”?, are you saying punitive damage and other costs awards won’t exist in the near future?

You add even more: “The sole purpose of such statements, Peter, is to scare people into coughing up settlement money. This has been voltage’s tactics in the USA which have been an overall a failure and reviled by the legal system. They make unmemorable films so this is their ‘Plan B’. ”

Well, the mere “statements” as referred to by you, Crockett, is the actual wording in the claim that was filed in Federal Court.

And even more: “Scare people into giving you money with threats you really don’t intend to go through with? Yup, I’d call that a shakedown now that the milk money has run out.”

The company has already begun due process Crockett, that’s one hell of a extortion racket/scare tactic/bluff.

> PeterP said: @ Crockett
The Rightful owners are exercising their legal Rights and you reduce them to nothing more than “schoolyard milk money pocket shakers”, really?

You know if you just gave the people what they want, access to digital download with out DRM for $5-10 you’d see file sharing cut 3/4 overnight. Hell at $5 for old shows I wouldn’t even go to pawn shops anymore to get movies for $2.99. God I love pawn shops “I” save money while not giving the studios a dime.Not having to start the car, drive for 20 min to spend $2.99 for a movie would not be worth it if I could download it for $5.

Thanks the consumer.

Years from now they’ll be teaching students in schools now not to run a business. Firs lesson will be about the Media companies.

Oh I just got the Humble TXQ Bundle. Paid $20 so that’s $2.22 per game. Damn what a deal, now that’s customer service and my third bundle.

Peter, you know full well the papers filed are only for the discovery phase. A trial court case on the other hand will set a precedent. Which is why they will not go court.

I stand by my premise. IF this ever actually went though to a court case then then the damages awarded will very likely be in the low rage of the $5000 cap. With the direction from the government to the courts on this matter there will be no punitive or interference awards UNLESS this was an commercial infringement matter, which in these cases it is not. Those are simply red herrings to scare the uniformed.

Is it their legal right to operate in this manner? Yes, but only until the courts get tired of it (which in the USA has already happened). Canadians should just look to how the matter has played out in the south and not let themselves be abused in such a manner.

To Clarify,The reason the Plaintiffs will not want a court settlement is the damages will likely be quite low. This will set a precedent that would make further litigation to costly to pursue, removing the public fear factor which is the other real reason behind all this.

The only way to make this work is to use large numbers to scare people into out of court settlements. A court case would eviscerate that. What people need to do is show they are willing to fight you, call your bluff. They must meet all the legal requirements of the court but once they are in compliance you will blink, count on it.

Oh, and one more thing.The only real large scale trolling that has netted settlement profits for the plaintiffs in the USA are related to pornography titles. It is the name & shame factor here that is the effective tool (no pun intended).

So, while Voltage’s movies are certainly no cinematic gems, I don’t think they would generate that much derision … well then again

>Voltage Pictures states that this action is necessary to ensure the long term viability of the studio.

You know if you didn’t make shitty movies or have movie theaters charge $10 for the movie you’d have more money.

Now say I went to court and was on the stand could I just say, well your honor I never would have bought this movie in the first place because of the bad reviews but I heard its was so bad I just had to download and see for myself. Because I never would have bought it Voltage lost no money.

Or Yes your honour I have this move on DVD/BR right here. I bought it after I downloaded it, watched it and liked it so much I needed to buy it. Previewing the movie made me buy it.

@ Crockett “What people need to do is show they are willing to fight you, call your bluff. They must meet all the legal requirements of the court but once they are in compliance you will blink, count on it.”

To Clarify, like you, Crockett, I’m just a guy voicing my views.
How in the world did you directly involve me in Voltage Pictures’
legal claims?

You say: “With the direction from the government to the courts on this matter there will be no punitive or interference awards UNLESS this was an commercial infringement matter, which in these cases it is not.”

I read (and re-read)C-11 a few times, can I now ask that you to spoon-feed me?, and at the very least direct me to the language in the CMA that backs up your claim(s).

RE: set a precedent – would every case not be different and based on the facts and the individual(s) involved?
I don’t understand your use of “set a precedent”, even less so now that C-11 is the law.

@PeterP “would every case not be different and based on the facts and the individual(s) involved?”

Usually yes, but it looks like in this case they are going after people using Bit-torrent to share one of of their movies in a swarm. So actually all the defendants are quite similar and equally culpable. The only exception I could think of would be the original seeder of the file.

@ Crockett “Oh, and one more thing.
The only real large scale trolling that has netted settlement profits for the plaintiffs in the USA are related to pornography titles. It is the name & shame factor here that is the effective tool (no pun intended).”

I understand words such as “trolling” and “free-tards” are used to invoke a certain response, lets not, ok

I’d rather focus on the fact that Canada has finally up-dated the Copyright Act Crockett, and what that means in real world terms.

“So, while Voltage’s movies are certainly no cinematic gems, I don’t think they would generate that much derision … well then again ”

One mans trash is another mans treasure. One of the many perks of remaining a free and open minded free thinker.

It’s been a while since I commented on this blog. First off, those of you who have followed the copyright debates closely, know that courts in the US threw out a huge majority of Voltage cases due to judges getting fed up with Voltage misusing the court and copyright law. This was in part why Voltage dropped the Canadian cases soon after.

It’s not a suprize that this same company is attempting to misuse our copyright system in the same way. Teksavvy has a good legal argument regarding Governments intention and direction on mass lawsuits.

Those closely following the copyright debates know the following:

1) It is almost impossible to prove in non-commercial cases that statutory damages. The US accountability office can’t even come up with numbers, and every time industry does, they are continually shot down by economic reports.

2) A more interesting legal question that pops up is if this company hired to track IP’s only for the purpose of court action is actually abiding by privacy laws. We’ve already been in a debate on lawful access against tracking internet connections without a court order. Same sort of debate going on here me thinks on this, and if privacy laws are not protecting Canadians against private companies tracking for the purpose of court action without a court order, could this also be used as a back door for law enforcement on lawful access. A question that needs to be asked and answered in court.

3) The vast majority of Canadians spoke out on mass lawsuits during the copyright consultations. The government acted to protect Canadians from this. I saw let the copyright holders enforce their rights on non-commercial infringement. When ever they do it almost always ends up in disaster.

Copyright holders should be very careful on how they are approaching cases like this, especially from a company trying to set a precedent, that has already tried the patience of Judges south of the boarder on their tactics. In a sense, this is almost a gift from the copyright lobby, that this company had to be the first one to test these laws. The overall outcome will most likely not be in Voltage’s favor due to this companies court and legal track record.

So all you “copy-right” guys (cough *John*) keep your panties on, Canadians may just end up giving you a wedgie.

In this manner it is a descriptive term. If we want to talk about misusing terms for effect let’s look at the word ‘Piracy’, which in the original nomenclature in no way refers to file sharing today.

And yes, I too am fairly pleased with the updated copyright laws. The intent of the government with the $5000 cap was, as you say, to be fair and move the focus to commercial infringement. We both know full well that that cap makes taking a case to litigation uneconomic. The only way the plaintiff will ever see any money is from settlements. That my friend is trolling, plain and simple. No degradation necessary.

@ Crockett “The intent of the government with the $5000 cap was, as you say, to be fair and move the focus to commercial infringement.”

Not exactly what I wrote (or what I believe) but I will agree that the focus in Canada has tilted toward commercial infringements.

That doesn’t change the fact that court is a messy situation for everyone however, and very costly for both parties. Not everyone will have free legal services and for those unfortunate to be brought before the courts its advisable to have real legal counsel.

“We both know full well that that cap makes taking a case to litigation uneconomic.”

I disagree 100%.
The CMA maybe new, but the studios and Rights holders have been policing their Rights for decades. The larger studios have already been paying $10,000.00′s in US funds to US lawyers to protect their investments, the costs of litigation in Canada will be peanuts in comparison!

“The only way the plaintiff will ever see any money is from settlements”

The Rights holder gets much more than simply money should they prevail Crockett.

>>Ensuring reasonable penalties for infringement for non-commercial purposes: There are several ways a copyright holder can seek compensation for infringement of his or her copyright. One way is to sue the individual, asking the courts to award monetary compensation for each work infringed. The pre-established damages used in civil litigation are called statutory damages. Currently, the courts may award penalties of $500 to $20,000 per infringement, regardless of whether it was for commercial or non-commercial purposes. For example, someone who downloads five songs illegally could face penalties ranging from $2,500 to a maximum of $100,000, and this could be higher still, depending on the number of copyright holders per song.

The Bill ensures that Canadians are not subject to unreasonable penalties by significantly reducing statutory damages for infringement for non-commercial purposes by individuals, providing the courts with the flexibility to award between $100 and $5,000 in total damages. Using the same example of five illegally downloaded songs, the individual would only be liable for a penalty of between $100 and $5,000 under the proposed changes. The Bill will ensure that courts take proportionality into account in awarding damages.

Seems to me for no commercial uploads/downloads the highest damage for the total number of copyrights works per case is a max of $5k and up the the judge. So if there are 5 copyright owners going after a grandma in the same case they can’t all get the damage x 5 but a total max of $5K for that case.

@PeterP “Crockett directing me to an article you read on the net is useless, can you direct me to the reference language you read in the CMA that backs up your claims please.”

Peter, you are the one who is trying to argue against the premise Prof. Geist set out in this article. I am not a lawyer, so I am content to accept his recognized expert opinion. I do check out other sources of opinion, some on the other side of the debate as well, such as Johndegen.com, always a good read.

But Peter, if you are going to argue against a stated topic in a forum it is incumbent upon you to cite your reasons and sources against. It’s not up to me to dig it up for you.

Questions, questions, questions
Would any of the below be reasonable questions (in the sense of being able to get a useful response) that a defendant could ask of Voltage? I’m sure there are lots more (and better) that could be asked – these were off the top of my head.

- Does TekSavvy guarantee with 100% certainty that my household was using that IP address on the day and time that Voltage claims the IP address was infringing?

- If not, what confidence level does TekSavvy guarantee, preferably expressed as a percentage?

- What software, including name and version, was Canipre employing to allege my household’s infringing?

- Does the maker of the software (who could very well be Canipre) guarantee with 100% certainty that no bugs could have caused a false positive?

- If not, what confidence level does the maker of the software guarantee, preferably expressed as a percentage?

- If it is third party software then there will almost certainly be a list of open and closed bugs. Where can I find that list?

- As I (or my brother-in-law, or first cousin, etc) is a professional software engineer, can I/he/she sign an NDA and code review the software myself/himself/herself?

@ Crockett “Peter, you are the one who is trying to argue against the premise Prof. Geist set out in this article”

Crockett, I never mentioned the article I simply asked that you “direct me to the reference language you read in the CMA that backs up your claims”,

“With the direction from the government to the courts on this matter there will be no punitive or interference awards UNLESS this was an commercial infringement matter, which in these cases it is not. Those are simply red herrings to scare the uniformed.”

as I found no language in the CMA to support your above statements.

You say: “But Peter, if you are going to argue against a stated topic in a forum it is incumbent upon you to cite your reasons and sources against. It’s not up to me to dig it up for you.”

Crockett my comments were and are directed at you and your very matter-of-fact statements, not the forum or the article.
If your reply, “I am content to accept his recognized expert opinion.” stands, ok

Well Peter, I think the government has made itself pretty clear in regards to not wanting trolling activity in Canada and crafted its legislation in that direction. Such activity has fallen out of favor and is increasingly being strongly frowned upon by US judges. Just like the high profile RIAA cases of a few years ago, this tactic is about to bottom out. I see this as a last run at the Canadian system since they are no longer welcome in the USA legal system and before the Canadian landscape solidifies under the new directions.

Like I said, I am not a lawyer so I suppose we will just have to wait and see.

@PeterP “We both know full well that that cap makes taking a case to litigation uneconomic.”

I disagree 100%. The CMA maybe new, but the studios and Rights holders have been policing their Rights for decades. The larger studios have already been paying $10,000.00′s in US funds to US lawyers to protect their investments, the costs of litigation in Canada will be peanuts in comparison! … The Rights holder gets much more than simply money should they prevail Crockett.”

I fail to see even if they got the maximum award of $5000 if that could be considered prevailing as a deterrent (never mind a more probable $100). The government has given direction “the need for an award to be proportionate to the infringements, to the courts. So, I will have to disagree with you on the premise of full court litigation being a viable route to profit, or remedy. The only side benefits they can hope to achieve is if people settle out of court or stop downloading their movies out of fear. Both of which are likely to some degree, but again we will not see it go all the way to court, as this will kill those side benefits.

But the bottom line is this, and I will leave it here, their purpose is nothing noble about protecting rights. These movies are not blockbusters but B-grade fare that would probably benefit from the promotion effect (you are welcome to disagree on this). The real thing happening here is legal racketeering as a profit making venture. If you are being targeted in this way I would recommend looking at what is happening in the USA, the failure of said trolling models even there where the maximum possible damages are at least 30 times higher.

Finally, as I like to say at the end of an debate, I encourage everyone to support the work of the artists you appreciate and pay for the media you use. If at all possible avoid media that supports persons or businesses that participate in trolling or anti-consumer behavior. Search out artists who operate in a manner that respects their fans and support them as directly as possible.

Voltage is implying in their filed papers, that the John and Jan Does, committed “Commercial Infringement”, as they redistributed all or a portion of the copyrighted materials, by acting as “peer” in the p2p network.

How does the new copyright act define Commercial versus non-commercial infringement? Does there have to be a monetary gain for the infringement to commercial?

@PeterP
With the direction from the government to the courts on this matter there will be no punitive or interference awards UNLESS this was an commercial infringement matter, which in these cases it is not. — Crockett

“direct me to the reference language you read in the CMA that backs up your claims” — PeterP

I’m guessing the part Crocket and Geist are referring to is 38.1(5)

——–

Statutory Damages
Factors to consider

(5) In exercising its discretion under subsections (1) to (4), the court shall consider all relevant factors, including
(a) the good faith or bad faith of the defendant;
(b) the conduct of the parties before and during the proceedings;
(c) the need to deter other infringements of the copyright in question; and
(d) in the case of infringements for non-commercial purposes, the need for an award to be proportionate to the infringements, in consideration of the hardship the award may cause to the defendant, whether the infringement was for private purposes or not, and the impact of the infringements on the plaintiff.

——

While not explicitly a prohibition on punitive damages, it certainly makes what is already a rarity in Canadian legal tradition even less likely.

As someone named by Canipre as having downloaded “Dale and Tucker vs Evil” on Sept 14, 2012 I will state that the accuracy of their software cannot be 100% as not only have I never downloaded a torrent of this movie, I have never even heard of it or Voltage Pictures which produced it (I later read that Voltage made the Hurt Locker which I had heard was stolen from an Iraqi war vet).

I’d like anyone arguing on the side of the copyright holders to take a moment to check out their homepage (http://canipre.com/). They seem to exist solely to track down the IP addresses of copyright infringers; without these lawsuits they would go out of business hence their slogan: “if they keep thinking it’s free, when do you go out of business?” This company is a parasite of a broken copyright system and the laws you support keep them in business. Congratulations.

I believe this is nothing more than a blatant troll akin to the one Voltage tried to pull with the Hurt Locker in the States in 2010 and I will absolutely be forcing them to sue me before they see dime one. Unfortunately this means my family will have to delay buying a house (possibly indefinitely) but luckily we are not expecting another child or else we would have to seriously consider abortion as a successful lawsuit (or even defending ourselves from one) would put us into an economic situation that would likely condemn all our children, as well as ourselves, to poverty.

But hey, at least a foreign company will ensure that it’s ~$200,000 grossing movie breaks even and will be able to continue to produce many other shitty films in the future. Go Canada.

LarryGI just don’t think this will fly with our court system when considering the following:

a) If this goes through and ANY cash awards are awarded, the rest of the much larger companies will follow suit. Even in small claims court, this will lead to an even larger backlog than we already have, which is substantial.

b) Even if the Federal courts say, fine you can sue, I would think at least 30% of those named in the suit will fight the charge, citing already owning a copy, a network internet connection, etc etc. This is certainly not a slam dunk case for the production companies in any way shape or form.

c) This is political suicide for the PC Govt., even after all the other crap they’ve pulled. If these suits go ANYWHERE, it will become a re-election issue and possibly lead to changes.

“Unfortunately this means my family will have to delay buying a house (possibly indefinitely) but luckily we are not expecting another child or else we would have to seriously consider abortion as a successful lawsuit (or even defending ourselves from one) would put us into an economic situation that would likely condemn all our children, as well as ourselves, to poverty.” — James G

Thanks, I have a Degree in lower-middle class Hyperbole from Devry College! (also; YAY I was quoted on the internet)

In all seriousness, while this is not something that would cause me to consider aborting a child, it absolutely will put me off buying a house for a few years. If about 2300 people are getting these and say 5% of them (and that’s low) decide to fight, (wait x years for case to resolve, during which they’ll have to take time off work to make court dates), lose and get the full fine plus legal fees, that’s (calculator) 115 people that will be out of at least $5000 and probably would put off buying a house (or an equivalent purchase) for several years. 115 * (say) 215,000 = $24 million per year from the market… per lawsuit! Meanwhile they also build up money from those who don’t fight and pay the settlement (except, of course, that last time they dropped all cases so I don’t know how this worked out) who merely delay a smaller purchase like a car or appliance.

I don’t personally believe that Voltage Picture is worth this, I think that if they want to have a Monopoly on their ‘property’, it’s they’re responsibility to make sure it’s seen in order to make money and not the courts’ (there are plenty of services like Netflix, which I subscribe to, that are doing quite well and when I checked and this film was not on there). We’re giving them monopoly rights with NO responsibilities and this is what they’ll keep giving us, ultimatums and threats. I watched this happen in the US for 10 years in horror, I’m not going to let kids and grandmothers get sued here while I’ve got something to say about it.

Who Downloaded It?My concern is for privacy but more importantly that maybe a download wasn’t successful.

Are these claims hard to prove? Say you have a wireless connection that is not secure, or perhaps a friend or relative staying over downloaded at you place? Is it fair to go after the the person whos name in on the account? What about downloads that were not unzipped, or downloads that had corrupted data, or simply immediately deleted?

Another though occurred, what’s the bank going to say when I go to get a mortgage and I’m in the middle of a lawsuit? I might be completely unable to get any kind of loan for years, and all for a movie that I hadn’t even heard of before today.

@end user
I really appreciate that, I’ll get in touch with you guys via this board if it comes to that (right now it’s merely a matter of my name and address being disclosed, no suit filed yet, god I f’ing love TekSavvy for not just giving them the names).

Right now I’d mostly like to get advice as to what I should be doing next. All I know is that Voltage Pictures is making a motion Monday at 10 in Toronto (couple hours away) to have my ISP release my name based on an IP address that my ISP says I was using at the time (and I have no reason to doubt them at this point). I’d like to stop even this if possible, do I need a lawyer? If I want to defend myself, how do I get a copy of their evidence that they recorded my IP address?

First thing the smart people need to do is see to it that voltage never successfully markets another movie. I want to know in my email, or whatever, if they ever make another movie. Their movies need to be boycotted. Their stars need to be boycotted. Any advertiser that appears at a screening needs to be scared off.

I didn`t bother seeing the Hurt Locker, and the rest of the list is not something I have stepped in with a squishy feeling. Still. I am going to check any film they make onto a do not support list. Protecting their copyright is one thing, but that is their job, I`m not being paid the big bucks to do it.

What a horribly flawed piece of legislation
Bill C-11 is. Allowing the copyright trolls
to swarm in like vultures to sue ordinary
Canadians is unacceptable. And to have the
gall to make the mistake of going after some-
one, when they’re only going by an IP address!
As far as I know, mistakes can happen and a
lot of innocent people could be put under a lot
of stress like James G. It’s totally unfair!

Hope this all works out in your favour, James!
No one should have to pay for their mistakes
of extorting from people who may not have downloaded
one/ or more of their films in the first place!

It’s unfortunate that anyone who’s innocent
may have to put up with this unnecessary pestering
from content owners, simply because they used an
inaccurate way of pouncing on someone through
capturing an IP address, which may not be that
persons to begin with. An IP number is not a
person. Mistakes unfortunately will be made.

Should we all be worried that we could be at
risk of being threatened through extortion,
simply because they got our IP addresses
wrong? Should we also watch our backs as
to which websites we frequent? Looks like
our freedom on the web now is truly dead.

I’d looked at the list from Ticket, and I’d
never even heard of any of Voltage’s films.
No box office smashes in that list. Haha!

IPs do not prove anythingall of these cases should be thrown out because a IP address only proves what computer may have been used. It is impossible for canipre to prove who was using it at the time. my computer has been used by at least a dozen people. i am not responsible for what they may have done with it simply because my name is on the bill. that alone has been enough reason for these cases to be tossed out in the US

For Mr .GeistCan these cases be thrown out on the basis that the evidence was collected unlawfully? Canipre collected IP addresses of millions of Canadians without their knowledge and without the consent of the law (i.e. a warrant). Is there a big difference between this and say illegal wiretapping? Canadians assume a measure of privacy when browsing the internet, and the activity of millions of canadaians was tracked by this company. Regardless of their intent this seems to me to be an issue that deserves more attention than it is getting.
Any thoughts on that?

@PeterP Who do you work for?You really seem keen on stoking the fear that the VoltageTrolls depend on for their extortion scheme to work.

I imagine they’d want to take to forums and blogs saying stuff exactly like you are, after all they clearly favor shotgun tactics. I know if I was them I would want a PeterP making posts just like yours on this very blog.

Maybe I’m paranoid but on the off chance I’m right about you tell your masters that right now there are lawyers looking forward to setting a precedent and shutting this BS down in Canada once and for all. It’s a very sexy case, high-tech, new laws, messing with Tory legislation and considering it’s all imploded in the US an excellent chance for success.

The only case that did work for the right’s holders was the one with the guy who downloaded pay-for porn THEN uploaded it to another site. That is clearly piracy and indefensible. But to download a movie, watch it and delete? You’re going to need to show me how that’s different then taping a movie off of TV on a VHS and then you need to show me how it’s hurt anyone’s bottom line.

Go look at the Avengers and the other blockbusters from the last five years, notice how many record they’ve broken? Buh buh people can download them from bittotrents!?!? How can they be making money?!?!

Because they’re quality, people will always pay for that, for the crap that Voltage spews? Not so much.

So tell your masters to spend more time making good movies and less time trying to rip people off.

@Grunt re PeterPIt’s always interesting to see the shock/fear from piracy sympathizers when they encounter someone like @Peter who believes in justice. The reason for the fear is obvious. But the shock seems to come from the fact that most of the noise makers on this issue are piracy sympathisers and it is unfortunately quite rare for them to encounter someone who is actualy against illegal downloading. The recent Google and Wikipedia online strike in the U.S. brought down Obama’s plans for stricter copyright enforcement simply because Obama, like most people, assume whoever shouts the loudest must represent the majority. This legal action by Voltage is an example of an entity that doesn’t take their legal cues from Google (for shame Canadian government) and look at all the people speaking up against them. Look at all the fear over one legal action. But just because you are all afraid and this makes you all squeak doesn’t mean you are the majority. But the truth is that the majority of people always remain silent on any issue. And thieves are always a minority in any civilized society, but unlike most of the honest people in Canada I am not content to simply let the mice take over the ship as most people are. The bottom line is that there are always people who want stuff for free, and they really don’t care if someone else had to pour their heart and soul into making this stuff. It doesn’t matter if you call these people pirates, infringers, file-sharers – they are thieves at heart. And it doesn’t matter how good or bad the Vintage films are. Try making a film sometime – even a bad one, and then try doing it for a living, and then try having it downloaded for free even once let alone thousands or millions of times. Yes Hollywood blockbusters make money even with all the piracy going on. But do we really relish the prospect of Avengers 2, Avengers 3, Avengers 4, when we go to the movies? Frankly I’d rather see a short film made by a talented amateur who might be good enough to make money making films. But as someone who goes to the movies (and pays) each week, such films are rare in the extreme. In my view, it’s to protect such people and such films that copyright law is so essential. And don’t tell me about Canadian government grants for struggling film makers. Turning the film makers themselves into thieves is not the solution.

If you really listen to what people are saying its not that they want something for free its “Hey its 2013 and the only industry that hasn’t gotten the “Internet Business has been here since 1997″ memo” is the media industry.

With the Internet making the old “distribution” model the thing of the past everyone realized just how much they were getting ripped off before.

These people are blind and can’t see the millions sitting at home that just want to pull out their CC and buy a damn movie at home. People don’t want to spend $60+ dollars for a family moves night for some shit film that is a remake of some crappy movies from the 80′s.

By the way I DON”T care if the studios make money or get money. I haven’t counted it but I have well over 500 DVD”s with about 120 or so bought brand new retail at $20-60 (some box sets were $40 per season like OZ). The rest I bought at pawnshops or flea markets SO I could save myself money on and it is about me saving money.

You took my post as â€œshock and fearâ€? I don’t think you’re very good at understanding stuff but let’s seeâ€¦

>from piracy sympathizers when they encounter someone like @Peter who believes in justice.

You think demanding $10,000+ from someone for downloading a movie is â€œjusticeâ€?

Wow.

What would you do to a jaywalker? Cut their foot off? If someone stole the DVD from HMV would they even come close to paying such a penalty?

>This legal action by Voltage

Weird that the judges in the States don’t think their actions are legal, hey but what do they know?!?!

>And thieves are always a minority in any civilized society,

See right there you show quite clearly that you don’t even understand the issue. But happy to be wrong, can you please show me what has been stolen? You call someone a thief you’d pretty much have too.

> The bottom line is that there are always people who want stuff for free,

Quite right, some of them even hire lawyers to write extortion letters to get it.

>and they really don’t care if someone else had to pour their heart and soul into making this stuff.

Let’s say there was no Internet how much more money would Voltage have made? Now, before you answer that I want you to Google â€œPsyâ€ and â€œCopyrightâ€.

>Try making a film sometime – even a bad one, and then try doing it for a living, and then try having it downloaded for free even once let alone thousands or millions of times.

So if my movie is making money and is being downloaded I’m not sure if I’d care all that much. In fact I would be happy to have people looking at my work, knowing my name and enjoying it because that is ADVERTISING. You know what that is? You know how expensive it is? You know what the best kind is?

>Yes Hollywood blockbusters make money even with all the piracy going on.

So that would suggest that demands for punitive damage are what?

> But do we really relish the prospect of Avengers 2, Avengers 3, Avengers 4, when we go to the movies?

Uh hell yes? Have you seen it? Do you know they have nearly 50 year’s worth of stories to draw upon? You know that Joss Whedon is a genius?

>Frankly I’d rather see a short film made by a talented amateur who might be good enough to make money making films.

You mean like all the films that are still being made? It’s strange but I haven’t actually seen anyone who made movies that made it to a theatre outside the unemployment office. From Atom Egoyan to Kevin Smith they all seem to be doing fine.

You really think the independent film audience is suddenly going to give up their artsy theatres to stay at home to watch it on their laptop? There has been a drop in people going to the theatres but at the same time NetFlix, video gaming and other entertainments have gone up. In short people still pay for movies but in different ways.

>But as someone who goes to the movies (and pays) each week, such films are rare in the extreme.

Huh? What city do you live in? In mine the TWO indy screens are doing just fine. In Toronto how many art house have shut down in the last two years? How many have opened? Care to show your work?

>In my view, it’s to protect such people and such films that copyright law is so essential.

So. The two thousand people Voltage is trying to bust for $10,000+ will result in the end of movie downloading? Hey, just like how that guy got arrested for smoking weed ended all drug abuse!

>And don’t tell me about Canadian government grants for struggling film makers. Turning the film makers themselves into thieves is not the solution.

I wasn’t going to tell you about those grants (which are a great idea and need to be expanded) but I was going to tell you the reality:
People will be downloading movies off the Internet for as long as there is an Internet. Now, Hollywood can be smart about it and adopt a model that lets them make more money. Audible is an excellent example, I have a subscription that allows me to download one â€œfreeâ€ book each month and discounts on countless other titles. I can take that file and put it on any device I like, no fuss no muss. They get my money, I can my media and guess what? Every single title they have? Are on the torrents and they’re small files, I suspect one could download their whole library in a weekend.

And yet Audible thrives!!!

And what’s even funnier here is that these lawsuits just draw more attention to the fact that people can get free stuff off the net. Right now this story is making the â€œproblemâ€ worse and not just that but there is going to be a spike in VPN sales like BTdefender and the like. You track my IP? Fine, I will hide it. Oh you found a workaround for that? Ah well here’s the workaround for your workaround and on we go.

You took my post as â€œshock and fearâ€? I don’t think you’re very good at understanding stuff but let’s seeâ€¦

>from piracy sympathizers when they encounter someone like @Peter who believes in justice.

You think demanding $10,000+ from someone for downloading a movie is â€œjusticeâ€?

Wow.

What would you do to a jaywalker? Cut their foot off? If someone stole the DVD from HMV would they even come close to paying such a penalty?

>This legal action by Voltage

Weird that the judges in the States don’t think their actions are legal, hey but what do they know?!?!

>And thieves are always a minority in any civilized society,

See right there you show quite clearly that you don’t even understand the issue. But happy to be wrong, can you please show me what has been stolen? You call someone a thief you’d pretty much have too.

> The bottom line is that there are always people who want stuff for free,

Quite right, some of them even hire lawyers to write extortion letters to get it.

>and they really don’t care if someone else had to pour their heart and soul into making this stuff.

Let’s say there was no Internet how much more money would Voltage have made? Now, before you answer that I want you to Google â€œPsyâ€ and â€œCopyrightâ€.

>Try making a film sometime – even a bad one, and then try doing it for a living, and then try having it downloaded for free even once let alone thousands or millions of times.

So if my movie is making money and is being downloaded I’m not sure if I’d care all that much. In fact I would be happy to have people looking at my work, knowing my name and enjoying it because that is ADVERTISING. You know what that is? You know how expensive it is? You know what the best kind is?

>Yes Hollywood blockbusters make money even with all the piracy going on.

So that would suggest that demands for punitive damage are what?

> But do we really relish the prospect of Avengers 2, Avengers 3, Avengers 4, when we go to the movies?

Uh hell yes? Have you seen it? Do you know they have nearly 50 year’s worth of stories to draw upon? You know that Joss Whedon is a genius?

>Frankly I’d rather see a short film made by a talented amateur who might be good enough to make money making films.

You mean like all the films that are still being made? It’s strange but I haven’t actually seen anyone who made movies that made it to a theatre outside the unemployment office. From Atom Egoyan to Kevin Smith they all seem to be doing fine.

Well said gruntDBell, there are a few posters on this blog who are the “something for nothing types” but the ones who actually make an effort to understand and comment on the issues are also very supportive of artists & creators.

Here is a newsflash for you, the tactics of voltage and other copyright trolls will do more harm than good. If you think they are in it to “protect the industry”, I have a bridge for sale. Bullying is not a long term solution, sure some people may think twice about downloading one of their B-grade movies but many others will harden their hearts and maybe check out those nifty VPN services.

Do I support downloading? No, unless it is freely given. Do I think the hard handed **AA tactics and copyright trolls will make myself or others run out and buy a voltage picture? Yeah, right.

I think instead I will enjoy the latest free YouTube release from http://thepianoguys.com/ and enjoy giving the CDs & merchandise I bought off their site as gifts this year. These guys get it, they appreciate their fans and the feeling is mutual. Voltage is simply destroying their own industry to make a few greedy bucks, but if your misguided championing helps you to feel good … feel free.

Ontario Small Claims Court up to $25000I’m not clear from Prof Geist’s column whether the statute requires individual court cases be fought in Federal Court, or if they would fall with Small Claims jurisdiction. In the latter, Defendants would not need to hire counsel to appear, while obviously the Plaintiff would, and the litigation would be manageable and summary – a big nuisance for ISPs and Defendants, and likely unrewarding for Plaintiffs. Defendants might find a sympathetic and efficient resolution from Small Claims adjudicators not enthralled by a deluge of nearly identical claims.

DBellDBell,
i neither for or against file sharing. What i am against is long winded sanctimonious droning by a 1 paragrpah afflicted writer.
do us all a foavor, since you seem to love listening to yourself pratice your grammar first. At least then you can have a few more sentences per paragraph.

About this site
“Copyhype provides news and info on current developments relating to copyright law, the media industries, and the digital economy. It cuts through the hype to bring reasoned discussion aimed at both legal and nonlegal audiences.

In 2011, Copyhype was named by the ABA Journal as one of the top 100 legal blogs in the U.S.”

DBell I can only hope you don’t allow the mindless and demeaning childish rants aimed at you affect you in any way.
Do keep in mind that the tactics used by these kids are tired and old and most are in desperate need of new material.
Crockett, Grunt, have both attempted (and failed miserably) to demonize me simply because I don’t agree with their views. In fact both tried to link me directly with the production company; sad but true.
Somehow I’m the pawn yet when push came to shove Crockett actually wrote this back, “I am content to accept his recognized expert opinion.” so much for free thinking! Yet somehow in their minds I have a master?

Your thoughts and comments are thoughtful and honest DBell, thanks for that.

1) Creative businesses are inseparable from busking: seeing a thing is what creates demand.
We have simply forgotten that front-loaded pricing is the exception and not the rule.

2) Copying is “patently” not theft, piracy, conversion, fraud, or invasion of an creator’s privacy. The value of a pattern or digital file, which is often used to justify the language of “theft,” is different from the value of a physical object. A pattern’s value depends entirely on society (see “end user”‘s comments on thrift-store shopping and trying first). Despite the obvious difference that for physical objects 1-1=0 while with digital objects 1+1=2, society is entirely what sets the value of a digital object. If society won’t pay you, it simply has no social value. That may be a bitter pill to swallow, but that is different from theft: it’s like not wanting to pay a busker because you don’t like their act.

3) IMHO, preventing copying, an act that harms no one and has tremendous social benefits, is in itself wrong and at the moment I see a pretty big dissonance between the law and the public’s sense of right and wrong. It feels like copyright simply got bought by established business as a hedge against change.

@DBell: You are right, the squeaky wheel gets the grease. Which is why the people who are most familiar with digital technologies are rallying to defend their basic premise (copying) from a stampede of angry dinosaurs with more money than vision, whether they are pushing SOPA in the US, the TPP, ACTA, or invasive copyright.

And I’m pretty sure we all made points that you are carefully ignoring so whatever they’re paying you to astro-turf it’s clearly too much.

In short:

You can’t stop people from sharing on the net, you’re sticking your finger in a hole in a dyke that isn’t there and the waves are crashing all around you.

This extortion scheme will fail, TSI has given your potential victims an excellent heads up, they will not be ambushed, they will have time to educate themselves with blogs like this (BTW Thank you Dr. Geist) and knowledge kills fear and fear is what Voltage and their pack of Greeheads need. I have no doubt the judge will hand the info over (as they should, I don’t see anything private about an IP address and even dirtbags like Voltage deserve a day in court) and then the letters will come.

And the majority replies will all be from lawyers saying “See you in court!” because a) guaranteed they have the wrong IP address on more than a few of the “Does” and b) Voltage won’t go all the way (unlike your m… no, be nice) and then? Voltage will once again slink away, hopefully for good.

@ Grunt Yes, I read your comments direct at me, I’ll pass. Should I ever feel the need to engage in teenage banter I’ll go to torrentfreak or another similar site.
Grunt it’s highly unlikely you and I would ever speak in the real world and I’m more than content at having that same idea apply on line.
See ya

Re: DBellYou talk about file swappers being thrives at heart? Maybe you can point out where in the piracy process thievery happens. Is it:
1. Someone pays for media
2. Someone shares the media they bought with anyone who might need it, giving up their time and bandwidth
3. Someone downloads a file being freely offered to them by a fellow fan
or 4. Multi-million dollar corporations dictate one sided licensing terms to artists with little to no understanding of contract law

Some questions on the issueThanks all, for being informative and engaging on this issue.

I’d be curious to know if anyone knows the answer to a few questions I have about the latest potential copyright infringement lawsuits.

1) I presume all the IPs of interest have been identified via trackers – caught being downloading a movie illegally. Is it safe to say that only people identified downloading Voltage affiliated films (only one of which I’ve ever heard of before)?

2) Let’s say there was the scenario where one downloaded two Voltage movies illegally. One was tracked, one was not. Would the ISP have information regarding the untracked movie download? Could they conceivably be forced to share the information with Voltage (or any other body pursuing the same action)? In other words, could a tracked download be a gateway for being caught with other illegal downloads? Would Voltage go so far as to confiscate your hard drive to identify any other illegally acquired Voltage films?

3) I suppose this may be unprecedented, but what kind of proof is required to charge someone in a case like this. Could one just destroy their hard disk? Just an IP address seems a little circumstantial, especially considering cases where many residents live in the same household and use the same internet.

This usually isn’t the case for movies, often what happens is the digital file is leaked from the disc manufacturers and then uploaded for download. Since the demand for disks is so high this happens literally around the world.

What Hollywood needs to do is release the movies to the theaters and the digital files on the net at the exact same time.

Imagine if Disney had this deal:

Flat rate, 19.99 a month, every single thing Disney ever made you have access to. 5.99 new release on a sliding scale to .99 the further away from release.

Anyone care to hazard what the profit margin would be? I’m thinking they could buy a couple of Star Wars franchises for that.

Crockett, Grunt, have both attempted (and failed miserably) to demonize me simply because I don’t agree with their views. In fact both tried to link me directly with the production company; sad but trPeter,

I did not intend to link you directly with the production company. I was speaking to your support for their position, I did clear that up in one of the posts.

You then requested I show you the sections form the Copyright modernization act that supported my views. Those were already posted on this site in this very thread. I told you to look it up.

Yes, I do respect Prof. Geist’s opinion and agree with much of it but I also pointed out though that I read others views which are often quite divergent such as John Degen and James Gannon.

I have to agree with others though that your purpose here *seems* to be to support the tactics of Voltage and their lawyers. I, as well as others, have pointed out that their similar tactics in the USA have met with opposition not just from those on the receiving and of the law but the by legal system itself. As for a “free thinker”, the fact that you strongly hold those views in light of their ineffectiveness says quite a bit. So Peter, it is true that I do not agree with most of your views, but you are welcome to them.

@ Crockett Yesterday you (rather arrogantly) decided that our debate was over; find some conviction man!
As I’m more than content with us not exchanging any thoughts or ideas, now or anytime in the future.
Should you attempt to engage me in any more of your nonsensical rants I will ignore you Crockett and simply not reply.
Enjoy!

@ JamesG
“Re: DBell
You talk about file swappers being thrives at heart? Maybe you can point out where in the piracy process thievery happens. Is it:
1. Someone pays for media
2. Someone shares the media they bought with anyone who might need it, giving up their time and bandwidth
3. Someone downloads a file being freely offered to them by a fellow fan
or 4. Multi-million dollar corporations dictate one sided licensing terms to artists with little to no understanding of contract law”

Oddly enough you make a reference to contract law, so my question is have you ever the terms of use regarding media that you may have legally purchased? No where in the agreement are you (or anyone) granted the Copyrights to the media, you are not granted any of the neighboring Rights, i.e the Rights to disseminate or to distribute the Works, and therefore under existing laws you are not within your legal rights to make public Uses of the Works or any Uses of the Works that are stipulated in the terms of use upon purchase.
Sure you may have paid for the packaging, I doubt anyone would discourage you from sharing the plastic, but you fail to realize that you have not purchased the Copyrights.

PeterP said: >Sure you may have paid for the packaging, I doubt anyone would discourage you from sharing the plastic, but you fail to realize that you have not purchased the Copyrights.

Really the how come I can legally sell my LP/CD/TAPE/DVD/ETC… to anyone I want and they can watch it all they want and sell it all they want? With your reasoning it would mean that only I had the right to view the DVD and if I sold it, the other person would be forbidden to view it since they didn’t buy it from an authorized dealer.

PeterP said: >No where in the agreement

What agreement are you talking about? I didn’t sign anything a purchase time nor was I notified of anything at purchase time. There was no sticker on the music CD that said “By breaking this label you agreed to said conditions… please see inlay”

PeterP you’re more then welcome to come to my house and copy my car for free. I don’t mind as I didn’t lose anything in the process.

“You then requested I show you the sections form the Copyright modernization act that supported my views. Those were already posted on this site in this very thread. I told you to look it up.”

What was posted was nothing more than a view point and *NOT* the language that appears in the actual Bill.
You simply pointed to an opinion Crockett nothing more.
Which is why I decided to cease any interaction(s) with you, it’s pointless for me as I’m not looking to be molded or shaped.
I re-read the Bill again this morning and could not find the language to support you claims.
If you can direct me to the actual language in the actual Bill please do so; if not, you’re wasting our time.

Gosh PeterP you sure do know the nitty-gritty of the laws!Almost like you have a list of talking points right beside you! It’s also interesting how you say “Copyright” rather than copyright. Not sure why but it is interesting.

At any rate what you say is true enough and you and your masters think that $10,000+ is fair compensation for making a copy and giving it away?

See that’s the point you’re refusing to address that makes me think you are one of them, that the money they are demanding is insane. They don’t want justice or protection, they want free money via an extortion scheme (not my words, that’s what a real live judge said).

The other point is you and your masters cannot show the damage done by sharing. Someone burning a massive amount of discs,counterfeiting the packaging and selling them on the street? Oh yeah, slap them with fines and even jail time, no question. See that’s what the laws are for, those are the real bad guys.

Oh and that’s what happens in China, weird that our Tory government isn’t hammering them about it. Gosh, wonder why?

Two more questions for dr. GeistDr. Geist, I hope you continue to read the comments, as the discussion seems to be quite lively (I was about to say “intense”!)

However, it looks like two people have asked really pertinent questions, so perhaps you could enlighten us with some answers? Here they are:

1) How can Voltage demand information on alleged IPs that downloaded the movie prior to The Copyright Modernization Act (Bill C-11) officially coming into effect on November 30, 2012?

2) Wasn’t the “evidence” collected unlawfully? Canipre collected IP addresses of millions of Canadians without their knowledge and without the consent of the law (i.e., a warrant), BEFORE Bill C-11 came into effect (which means that, until November 30, the old laws were still in effect, and therefore downloading was not explicitly addressed)…

@ end user Perhaps the larger of the problems is the lack of factual and accurate information?
Look at any media that you may have purchased and read the Terms of Use, its all there for you.
I can point it out and even direct you to examples of a “limited, non-exclusive, licensing right” associated with most media, as well as Government websites that explain it in great detail, but it’s been my experience that doing so only makes things worse.
And would it not be a better idea for you to read the information for yourself?

@PeterP Reposting because apparently PeterP didn’t see it the first time….

With the direction from the government to the courts on this matter there will be no punitive or interference awards UNLESS this was an commercial infringement matter, which in these cases it is not. — Crockett

“direct me to the reference language you read in the CMA that backs up your claims” — PeterP

I’m guessing the part Crocket and Geist are referring to is 38.1(5)

——–

Statutory Damages
Factors to consider

(5) In exercising its discretion under subsections (1) to (4), the court shall consider all relevant factors, including
(a) the good faith or bad faith of the defendant;
(b) the conduct of the parties before and during the proceedings;
(c) the need to deter other infringements of the copyright in question; and
(d) in the case of infringements for non-commercial purposes, the need for an award to be proportionate to the infringements, in consideration of the hardship the award may cause to the defendant, whether the infringement was for private purposes or not, and the impact of the infringements on the plaintiff.

——

While not explicitly a prohibition on punitive damages, it certainly makes what is already a rarity in Canadian legal tradition even less likely.

@Bloodwolf[1) I presume all the IPs of interest have been identified via trackers - caught being downloading a movie illegally. Is it safe to say that only people identified downloading Voltage affiliated films (only one of which I've ever heard of before)?]

As someone who’s info is being requested, I have absolutely no idea what evidence they have that my IP was involved with downloading this movie and the Notice of Motion is on Monday. The only people who would are Canipre; the investigation company, Voltage Pictures and possibly the Judge and TakSavvy’s lawyers.

[2) Let's say there was the scenario where one downloaded two Voltage movies illegally. One was tracked, one was not. Would the ISP have information regarding the untracked movie download? Could they conceivably be forced to share the information with Voltage (or any other body pursuing the same action)? In other words, could a tracked download be a gateway for being caught with other illegal downloads? Would Voltage go so far as to confiscate your hard drive to identify any other illegally acquired Voltage films?]

I highly doubt that someone who downloaded one of Voltage’s movies would ever bother to download a second.

[3) I suppose this may be unprecedented, but what kind of proof is required to charge someone in a case like this. Could one just destroy their hard disk? Just an IP address seems a little circumstantial, especially considering cases where many residents live in the same household and use the same internet.]

I would be extremely interested in an answer to this as well because up to this point I have no idea how I’m going to ‘prove’ that I didn’t download a movie several months ago. I didn’t have my router set to log anything at the time but if anyone knows how to read Ubuntu logs I’d love some help. I do have Transmission (torrent client) running for several games, books and soundtrackes I downloaded legally from the Indie Humble Bundle as well as my brother’s band’s album which I have been authorized to share (Rico Sanchez, check them out on TPB) along with Eclipse and several of it’s SDKs but as far as I can tell, Transmission doesn’t log anything either.

Maybe PeterP or DBell could help with this one; say I am accusing you right now of illegally downloading a game that I wrote and I have your IP address. Show me how you would defend yourself.

@John HammondAs far as I can tell this suit has little if anything to do with C-11. They already did something nearly identical last year (http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/5999/125/) with The Hurt Locker before dropping all charges in March (after, of course, collecting an unknown amount of money in settlements).

If anyone knows what advantage would be incurred by waiting for C-11 to pass before suing, please post it.

@PeterP (one more try)PeterP said:
[@ JamesG
Oddly enough you make a reference to contract law, so my question is have you ever the terms of use regarding media that you may have legally purchased? No where in the agreement are you (or anyone) granted the Copyrights to the media, you are not granted any of the neighboring Rights, i.e the Rights to disseminate or to distribute the Works, and therefore under existing laws you are not within your legal rights to make public Uses of the Works or any Uses of the Works that are stipulated in the terms of use upon purchase.
Sure you may have paid for the packaging, I doubt anyone would discourage you from sharing the plastic, but you fail to realize that you have not purchased the Copyrights. ]

I don’t fail to realize anything PeterP; you fail to realize that no where in my post did I state that the file sharing process was legal. I know it’s not legal at point 2 and possibly 3 because the uploader (and, theoretically the downloader if they’re not authorized by the copyright holder) are breaking copyright law.

What I am arguing, and what you carefully glossed over, is that there is nothing in this process that remotely resembles stealing, thievery, piracy or any of the alarmist monikers given to file-sharing (legal or otherwise) by copyright apologists like our comrade DBell.

IF the original work was shoplifted or, as Grunt suggests, the film is leaked; then I could see a case made for stealing (or possibly corporate espionage in the case of leaking) but what DBell is suggesting is that every single person that downloaded one of Voltages movies is stealing from them and not merely breaking copyright law.

The implications of this are that all copies of a work, weather created legally or not, belong to the original copyright holder which is simply NOT TRUE. If it were that would mean that all the movies, music, games and books that you paid money for could be repossessed at anytime by whomever owns the copyrights to them at the time. And this, ladies and gents, is the idea copyright apologists want to convince you of when they say that file sharing is the same as stealing; they want nothing less that complete control of our entire media spectrum for whoever has the money to buy copyrights.

(This didn’t seem to go through the first or second time. Can’t use angle brackets?)

@JamesG – An IP is not a person; this has been established already in the American court system. So you have an IP that was assigned to me alleging I infringed your copyright but can you actually prove that I downloaded the movie without reasonable doubt? Could it have been someone staying at my house or using my wifi etc… Without the plaintiff getting a court order to search and find evident at my house this seems pointless. Enough with these TorrentTrolls extorting money from citizens and shut them down once and for all already!

PeterP said: @ end user
Perhaps the larger of the problems is the lack of factual and accurate information?

You mean clearly labeling CD/DVD/BR boxes with breakable seals that say if you break this seal you enter a contract with so and so? Or say a big fat sicker right up front that says “ALL rights reserved no resale permitted” Oh yah no one would buy those items.

PeterP said: Look at any media that you may have purchased and read the Terms of Use, its all there for you.

@ Darryl Yes I saw your post the 1st time, and?
What was asked is still *NOT* present; you (like your comrade) merely posted an opinion.
In fact your post answered the question very nicely so thanks for that.
“While not explicitly a prohibition on punitive damages”

My favorite part, this: “it certainly makes what is already a rarity in Canadian legal tradition even less likely.”

A rarity? The ink on Bill C-11 hasn’t had time to dry yet!, and you’ve already attached “tradition” to it?, awesome!

Canada has been a decade or so behind with it’s Copyright Act, the CMA has finally brought Canada up to speed, what tradition are you referring to exactly?
Before C-11 Rights holders had one hell of time protecting their Intellectual Property in Canada, now, not so much.
The old Act was full of loop holes and grey areas, C-11 not so much.
Sure there is a more balanced approach, but there is absolutely no language in the Bill that condones illegal activity, very much the opposite in fact.

I personally think your time could be much better spent ‘helping’ folks like AnonPro, Aaron, and the like-minded, both seem to be completely clueless regarding Copyrights and the fact Canada has had a Copyright Act one for over a 100 years!

“I personally think your time could be much better spent ‘helping’ folks like AnonPro, Aaron, and the like-minded, both seem to be completely clueless regarding Copyrights and the fact Canada has had a Copyright Act one for over a 100 years!”

Why is it that only today that a company like Voltage would decide to motion the court to release private information relating to the alleged IPs if the this law has been placed for a 100 year?

Legal questionIf this follows the same pattern as it has in the US, the goal of Voltage is not to take any subscribers to court, but to send threatening letters to consumers in the hope that they will pay. This tactic has come under fire in the US, with a couple of judges throwing out these mass lawsuits, as the plaintiffs seem to have no desire to actually bring any of the alleged infringers before the court.

Are there any specific barriers that could prevent this from happening in Canada, or will we be seeing the same tactics here?

@PeterPDude, I quoted chapter and verse of the law we are talking about. Not an opinion.

Also, the concept of punitive damages was not introduced with this bill. And yes, punitive damages are a rarity in Canadian law, deal with it. Nothing about this Bill is going to make them any more likely either. What I quoted would certainly give judges cause for leniency of first time and non-commercial infringement. Wasn’t that the quote you would asking for?

Why did they target, of all ISPs out there, TekSavvy?I’m quite curious, although I’ve got a pretty good idea.

I’m also getting a nice chuckle out of the obvious industry henchman posting in here. You really should ignore him. (Like, *really* ignore him, as opposed to how he says *he* is “ignoring” *you*, then he replies anyway later on.)

@Back2Basics[@JamesG - An IP is not a person; this has been established already in the American court system. So you have an IP that was assigned to me alleging I infringed your copyright but can you actually prove that I downloaded the movie without reasonable doubt? Could it have been someone staying at my house or using my wifi etc... Without the plaintiff getting a court order to search and find evident at my house this seems pointless.]

I’m well aware that an IP is not a person, but I don’t think we should not hold any responsibility for our wireless connections either. I don’t think it’s impossible that my wireless or my computer itself has been or is currently compromised although I believe I’ve taken reasonable steps to ensure security (I’m running Linux and my router is running 64-bit WEB encryption).
So if someone says they saw IP such-and-such download whatever on some-date and my ISP verifies that I was using the IP at the time, I’m not going to say, “Well, maybe it was my wife, arrest her.”; I’ll see what evidence they have and if it turns out that they find that someone used my machine to download this movie somehow I think I should have to take a court ordered computer security course to show me how to secure my machines properly.

On the other hand, I don’t see how Voltage saying they saw my IP at such and such a time is anything more than hearsay. What kind of evidence could they offer that couldn’t be easily forged? A screenshot? The output of some proprietary program? I have no clue as of yet.

[Enough with these TorrentTrolls extorting money from citizens and shut them down once and for all already! ]

“I personally think your time could be much better spent ‘helping’ folks like AnonPro, Aaron, and the like-minded, both seem to be completely clueless regarding Copyrights and the fact Canada has had a Copyright Act one for over a 100 years!”

Huh? I’m well aware about copyright laws and that laws against infringement have been around long before this bill. My question still hold legitimacy however you structure it, if they’re using this bill in order to acquire information for litigation, how is it legal for them to use the bill to justify the acquisition of that information?

If you illegally wiretap someone and determine them do be doing something illegal, then apply for a legal wiretap after the fact, you cannot use the illegally acquired information, this is the same thing; the legality of what the incumbent does is irrelevant if the method of determining legality itself is not legal.

agree with james gEstablished: IP not a person.
I do not believe a person should be responsible if someone uses their internet connection, especially wirelessly. As an example, let’s say someone stole my car, let’s even say I gave someone my car to use. If that person then ran someone over, am I accountable to the law for manslaughter? No. The person is. Likewise, because an IP address is not an individual, I don’t see how the owner of the Teksavvy account can be held responsible for the actions. I don’t however see any issue with the suggested court ordered computer security training.

But at the same time the people who know about Teksavvy are, well, savvy about technology and the Internet so they’re not as likely to be scared of bogus troll threats. Also the owners of TSI are all about their clients and are not making it easy for the Trolls like Rogers or Bell would have.

I’m fascinated by this story and am following it but I can’t figure out if Voltage and their helper monkeys like PeterP are running some clever con with a coming soon plot twist or they’re thinking “Well it didn’t work in the States but hey, Canadians? They’re easy going, they’ll collapse like a house of wet cards! Wait, do their igloos get Internet?”

If a gun is registered to me and someone without my knowledge/consent kills someone with it am I to blame without the plaintiff proving I did the crime with hard evidence? Is it automatically assumed I am guilty without proof? How is that different here? They have IPs and have yet to or will ever be able to prove in court that it actually belongs to a specific person. There seems to be enough reasonable doubt to get these type of cases thrown out, IMO. Just trying to learn more on the topic like everyone else.

@ JamesG “JamesG: What I am arguing, and what you carefully glossed over, is that there is nothing in this process that remotely resembles stealing, thievery, piracy or any of the alarmist monikers given to file-sharing (legal or otherwise) by copyright apologists like our comrade DBell.”

I did not carefully gloss over your play on words, I just have little patience playing semantics.
And if memory serves the new word is “Borrow-ing” thievery, stealing, piracy … are so last year!
It’s now *Borrow-ing*

“The implications of this are that all copies of a work, weather created legally or not, belong to the original copyright holder which is simply NOT TRUE.”

The Copyright(s) remain the property of the Rights holder, why is that so difficult to get your head around?

@ Darryl – “Dude, I quoted chapter and verse of the law we are talking about. Not an opinion.”

You did I saw and I even said thank you!

“Also, the concept of punitive damages was not introduced with this bill”

Agreed, its been around for decades. The debate began due to someone saying that Bill C-11 has effectively remove punitive damages from C-11, and that is false.

“What I quoted would certainly give judges cause for leniency of first time and non-commercial infringement.”

I would agree, however, that was not the debate.

“Wasn’t that the quote you would asking for?”
No, it is/was not. I asked for the “language in the actual Bill” that has effectively remove punitive damages in a legal claim, not mere personal opinion(s).

@PeterP *Borrow-ing* Once again on the list of points you ignore, what was “borrowed” “thieved” or otherwise “stolen”? You can’t call someone a thief unless you can show what the stole or who was deprived of property.

Check back on your question from PeterP 1-2 hrs from now as he is too busy battling this losing battle against other “Kids” (as he puts it) on similar forums and swarms of other infringers. I guess if he can’t scare people his job is in jeopardyâ€¦

“Wasn’t that the quote you would asking for?”
No, it is/was not. I asked for the “language in the actual Bill” that has effectively remove punitive damages in a legal claim, not mere personal opinion(s). — PeterP

————

(5) In exercising its discretion under subsections (1) to (4), the court shall consider all relevant factors, including (d) in the case of infringements for non-commercial purposes, the NEED FOR AN AWARD TO BE PROPORTIONATE TO THE INFRINGEMENT, in consideration of the hardship the award may cause to the defendant, whether the infringement was for private purposes or not, and the impact of the infringements on the plaintiff.

Does that help? As I said. our courts don’t do punitive damages at the best of time, and this is not likely to make that any more likely.

Caution … rant ahead.Some seem offended that there are those here, including myself, who think that the tactics of Voltage are counterproductive. Granted, it is true they are within their legal rights, but what we have been trying to get across is its just not a good idea.

I think I have made it clear I do not support file sharing, but rather encourage supporting creators. It is for THIS reason that I am so opposed to the overhanded tactics of copyright trolling. I truly believe that the negative effects outweigh the positive. It is also obvious to me, and I would suggest to most others, that these tactics are more about extorting cash than changing behavior. There will be little if any changed behavior through this, going to war will never win over the concurred. If the media industry wants to continue in these failed endeavors they will continue to reap the rewards for their legal but misdirected folly.

There are positive models out there doing quite well such as http://www.thepianoguys.com. I don’t see any loyal followings of Voltage pictures, instead I expect people will avoid them more than anything else because of all this. I can understand the indignant mindset of the studios but really they are only hurting themselves. Better to build a bridge than blow it up. Innovation is the only thing that has proven to be effective, what Voltage is doing is going in the opposite direction.

Will the Bill allow record labels to sue individuals and groups for large amounts, like in the U.S.?

This Bill ensures that Canadians will not face disproportionate penalties for minor infringements of copyright by distinguishing between commercial and non-commercial infringement.

Under current law, for commercial and non-commercial infringements, copyright owners can sue for statutory damages ranging from $500 to $20,000 for each work that is infringed. This Bill will dramatically reduce an individual’s potential liability in cases of non-commercial infringement. In such cases, statutory damages will be reduced to a one-time payment of between $100 and $5000 for all infringements that took place prior to the lawsuit.

For commercial infringement, there will be no change from the current law.

personit seems to me a big part of the issue here is that these so called copyright trolls aren’t doing these things for copyright holders rights, morale or ethical gruonds. there purely mercinairy and self serving orgs purely in it for greed at the expense of common folk. this really has nothing at all to do with copyright in my opinion.

Seems to be a lot of people with guilty consciences trying to defend something they did (or do) that they believe isn’t totally legitimate.

If they think they did nothing wrong, there would be no reason to come up with silly excuses like blaming unsecured wifi (in which case you deserve to feel some pain for being stupid), lots of users on a computer (you should be monitoring what your kids download anyway), and a whole host of other excuses that people know full well don’t really hold any merit.

Just say, “I did nothing wrong” and move on. A reasonable judge won’t levy a $5000 fine. At most you’ll see a $100 fine and be told to stop downloading pirated movies.

@ Darryl You posted the same thing 3 times, if it didn’t help the first 2 times why would the 3rd time be any more effective?
The statement I don’t agree with was and is that C-11 effectively removed any and all claims for punitive damages.
Darryl you can post guidelines all day, but you can not post any actual language in the Bill that would allow any judge to remove any claim for damages if the claim is valid.
Which is my point.
I never entered into the conversation RE: the flexibility within C-11, there’s no need to, it’s in the Bill, and rightfully so.

So once again, the debate surrounds the claim that punitive damages have been effectively removed from C-11, and *not* that judges have flexibility.

To me, someone who had filed many small claims actions. Voltage seems to just want your personal information in order to file an individual suit against you. I highly suggest you read the court docs, because they state which downloaded material they were looking for and I highly doubt anyone would be downloading these based on popularity. Take a look at the “the works” exhibit A the list is very short there is probably 5 people that may have downloaded these in Ontario. If you get a letter of settlement DON’T SETTLE they are out to scare people that is all. I highly recommend you get a good lawyer but DON’T SETTLE

I would agree that to settle for a situation or crime that you didn’t commit it a complete disservice to oneself; however, for those who did commit copyright infringements, defending those actions in court is very costly.

A “good lawyer”, a retainer = (min) $1500.00 – $3000.00 and that’s even before court.
Should the person be found guilty, the prevailing party can ask for court costs and fees.
There is no easy solution or safe way out, it’s messy and completely avoidable.
So while people are desperately looking for a work around or falling even further as to blame a neighbor, friend or family member, the Rights holders will continue to encourage laws and bills be drafted that reflect real world activities.

> PeterP said: the Rights holders will continue to encourage laws and bills be drafted that reflect real world activities.

And this is why do don’t get it…

ATM there’s a transition from a couple of generations who grew up with artificial scarcity controlled by the record companies and studios to a whole new generation on people who expect instant access to movies, music and other visual/auditory entertainment. It’ll take about 15 more years but that’s all you got before the commercial music/movie industries are nothing.

With the introduction of $400 home music studios in the early 2000′s which created a monster world of bedroom composers who have instant access to free distribution through the internet to today DSLR’s like GH3 giving bedroom movie producers cheap access to cinematic equipment for a few thousand that would have cost them hundreds of thousands only 15 years ago.

Imagine if Adobe or MS sued people for pirating software like the movies/record companies do, they’d be all but forgotten by now. Without piracy PS wouldn’t not be the standard that every other photo manipulation software is compared to. With out piracy Windows would never have reached 90% of the house holds up to the MID 2000′s. Mind you nothing can help Windows now. With OSX, Linux becoming quite mature and STEAM to have a native Linux port shortly Windows user base is gonna sink quite a bit in the next 5 years.

Small Claims Court?If these cases end up in court (highky unlikely) would it be argued in small claims court since it is under $25000?
In that case, a lawyer would not be necessary, except for perhaps some legal advice beforehand, and therefore not very costly. Just sayin…

As for “Should the person be found guilty, the prevailing party can ask for court costs and fees.” Also highly unlikely as
a)the case will probably never be tried in court as the risk is too high for the defendant and the evidence is too weak
b)That would impose a hardship on most defendants and the law specifically states that should be taken into consideration when deciding on a fine
C)it would set an ugly precedent which would lead to exorbitant fines for copyright infringement, which is exactly what the new bill was enacted to do. It was enacted to be balanced to both parties.

wowAndrew. if you think Gloria`s blurb is incredible, on wednesday I bought a great Porsche 911 after having made $5417 this month and-a little over, 10k this past-munth. this is actually the most-financialy rewarding I’ve ever had. I started this six months/ago and pretty much immediately startad bringin in minimum $80 per hour. I follow the details here, Great60.comCHECK IT OUT

@AnonProYeah, he’s not very good at being a TrollTroll, he lacks a certain subtly. He’s clearly working from a list of scare points that Voltage put in their own letter about how it’s going to cost you ONE BILLION DOLLARS. Hence his resistance tonthe fact that the law sets a clear cap and that no Canadian judge is going to exceed.

If they even go to court.

You get the letter, you pass it on to your lawyer, they write a letter saying see you in court andnVoltage goes after anyone who doesn’t.

Considering that TSI is keeping their users in the loop and has already told them as much I don’t Voltage is going to make that much out if their racket.

For “JamesG” and “Not a lawyer”Had fun reading all this. But it’s all stuff that has already been said over the poast year. Nothing new.

@”James G”,
Man, I feel for you. I would be in the same bought. I wouldn’t be able to make a house mortgage even if the court wanted $1,500. Times are tight.

Having said that, and reading how you have kids and all… As a dad I punished the kids on more than one occasion here by blocking their MAC address in my router so they couldn’t have net. For a week solid. Yeah yeah you can all call me a terrible dad.

After that week when I gave them net access again they laughed at me. Why? The kids were riding the neighbours open wifi! I don’t know which neighbour the one behind my house or to the left or right of me. Little brats. But yeah I can easily see how someone with an open wifi can get nailed. All my neighbours are french so it would be interesting if they got an extortion letter for an enlgish movie. Just saying…

Good luck James G. I hope you have someone to represent you in 5 days when this hits court so you can block your private info from being released. I wonder if you can even represent yourself if you show up at the court with Teksavvy? Please keep us informed.

@”Not a Lawyer”
A few people here are filing with the Quebec Language Police (OLF) about this Quebec company CANIPRE for various things:
1. Their English only marketing material
2. Their English only name, “Canadian Intellectual Property Enforcement” (canipre)
3. Their English only website
4. Their English only services offered to English only people
5. Any Data they are printing off in English only

It the tiny bit I, as a Quebecer, can do to help give these people some pain for people like James G over in Ontario.

@PeterP[I did not carefully gloss over your play on words, I just have little patience playing semantics.
And if memory serves the new word is "Borrow-ing" thievery, stealing, piracy ... are so last year!
It's now *Borrow-ing*]

Yes you did. I was specifically talking about file sharing not being the same as stealing. Your first post was about how I didn’t understand that unauthorized file sharing is illegal, which is true but completely irrelevant to whether or not it’s the same as stealing (unless you believe that all crimes are the same?).

quote : [You talk about file swappers being thrives at heart? Maybe you can point out where in the piracy process *THIEVERY* happens. Is it:
1. Someone pays for media
2. Someone shares the media they bought with anyone who might need it, giving up their time and bandwidth
3. Someone downloads a file being freely offered to them by a fellow fan
or 4. Multi-million dollar corporations dictate one sided licensing terms to artists with little to no understanding of contract law"

Oddly enough you make a reference to contract law, so my question is have you ever the terms of use regarding media that you may have legally purchased? No where in the agreement are you (or anyone) granted the Copyrights to the media, you are not granted any of the neighboring Rights, i.e the Rights to disseminate or to distribute the Works, and therefore under existing laws you are not within your legal rights to make public Uses of the Works or any Uses of the Works that are stipulated in the terms of use upon purchase.
Sure you may have paid for the packaging, I doubt anyone would discourage you from sharing the plastic, but you fail to realize that you have not purchased the Copyrights. ]

Now you’re glossing it over again; instead of responding to my stealing argument from the first post (which you have not yet done) you’re throwing around semantics about Borrowing (which is a stupid term because it implies that a digital copy can be given back to someone who already has a copy as if they’re unique).

Sooo, thanks for addressing my argument like an adult. I’m starting to think Crockett and these guys are right and you’re just some astroturfer with talking points in a word file on your desktop.

Next:
["The implications of this are that all copies of a work, weather created legally or not, belong to the original copyright holder which is simply NOT TRUE."

The Copyright(s) remain the property of the Rights holder, why is that so difficult to get your head around?]

I’m sure you’ll refer to this to semantics again but I wasn’t talking about copyrights (ie the right to decide who can copy your work, which do belong to the rights holder), I was talking about the actual copies. That’s why I said COPIES and not COPYRIGHTS in the post you quoted right…up…there.

Direct question, please answer: Do you think that (1) copyright holders own the actual copies of their works after they’re sold, or (2) they only own the right to decide who is allowed to copy their works.

This extortion tactic is so ridiculous and the court should not entertain for one second a motion to release anyone’s info! What grounds apart from someone’s IP can they accuse someone of downloading their pathetic B rated films is the real question. Oh wait I forgot they want to scare people into settling, my bad.

I did not write.
I did indeed make a reference to the word thievery, but only to insert the word du jour which is now Borrowing.

Clearly you’re not comfortable with the word “stealing”, ok, can I ask which word you would pick when describing someone who is knowingly depriving someone else of their legally owned Intellectual Property Rights.

“Direct question, please answer: Do you think that (1) copyright holders own the actual copies of their works after they’re sold, or (2) they only own the right to decide who is allowed to copy their works.

I know you hate direct answers but 1 or 2 Petey.”

My answer to you question(s) would be the following James;
The Copyrights remain the property of the rightful owners, whether their Works were copied once or a million times.

“I know you hate direct answers but 1 or 2 Petey. ”

Very much the contrary James I prefer direct conversation, its all the spinning that causes communication break down.

@Flan450Flan450 said:
[[[Seems to be a lot of people with guilty consciences trying to defend something they did (or do) that they believe isn't totally legitimate.

If they think they did nothing wrong, there would be no reason to come up with silly excuses like blaming unsecured wifi (in which case you deserve to feel some pain for being stupid), lots of users on a computer (you should be monitoring what your kids download anyway), and a whole host of other excuses that people know full well don't really hold any merit.

Just say, "I did nothing wrong" and move on. A reasonable judge won't levy a $5000 fine. At most you'll see a $100 fine and be told to stop downloading pirated movies. ]]]

Alright dipshit, I’m in a good mood, I’ll bite.

First, I DID NOTHING WRONG. I did not download this movie, I’ve never heard of this movie before I got an e-mail from my ISP. Has anyone here even seen “Dale and Tucker vs Evil” on TV or whatever? I checked and it’s not on Netflix in Canada. Frankly, at this point I’m going on Voltages’ word (and some reviews on IMDB) that this film even exists. If you’d read my earlier posts from yesterday, you’d know this.

All I’m saying with regards to my machine being compromised is that it could be possible for my machine to be compromised in the same way that it’s possible that evolution is an elaborate hoax (say 0.00…001%). I am currently running Linux and a 64-bit WEP encrypted wireless (which I also mentioned in the post you seem to be quoting). If you think there’s something I should have been doing on top of this, feel free to post. Otherwise, please feel free to shut your useless gob, you festering, sebaceous cyst.

You seem to have a real reading comprehension problem because I had actually said that I would not be against taking limited responsibility for someone else taking control of my machine or my kids or whoever downloading something. But as of right now, unless that’s the case (and I don’t think it is), I’M ABOUT TO BE SERVED A LAWSUIT FOR SOMETHING THAT I HAVE NOT AND WOULD NOT EVEN CONSIDER DOING … PUDDING HEAD. I CANNOT MOVE ON BECAUSE I’M GOING TO HAVE TO GO TO TRIAL FOR GOD KNOWS HOW LONG TO DEFEND MYSELF, POSTPONE THE PURCHASE OF A HOUSE THAT I’VE BEEN WAITING YEARS FOR AND LISTEN TO CHILDREN LIKE YOU WHINE ABOUT what? What is your issue? You seem don’t have a direct statement in your entire post. I can only conclude that this is because direct statements can be disproved and you are a coward.

“A reasonable judge won’t levy a $5000 fine.”

What The Fuck does that mean? Are you saying all judges are reasonable? Do you know the judge that’s going to oversee this? Are they reasonable? Are you saying that there’s no point in hiring expensive lawyers because a reasonable judge should be able to sort this situation out and can’t be influenced by argument?

You don’t know anything, about anything; you’re just another Internet loudmouth with nothing of value to contribute to the conversation.

In conclusion, you’re an entitled child, you talk about things you don’t understand and I can’t think of a third thing. Oh, wait, yeah: I hope you get your head stuck in a bike rack and children run up and kick you in the butt.

James G: exhibit A as to why this is a bad way to do a stupid thingAnd He won’t be the only wrongfully accused. I have no doubt that some of the people being served did download the movie but all it takes is one slip of a number for the “borrower” to get away with their dastardly crime and someone who did nothing to take the blame.

Judges usually frown on that sort of evidence gathering.

Hey PeterP at the next staff meeting you should bring that up, ask them how many innocent people your company is willing to screw over in your extortion scheme. Ah screw ‘em right? You gotta get paid!

@JamesGPeterP is working his little ass off trying to scare people but seem to be failing miserably. I guess his employer is not very happy with him so he is working some OT! Needs to make those monthly payments to the BMW 328i LOL! Like his car, just another wannabe big shot.

Its unfortunate if the slimmest chance that Teksavvy is order to release client information some accused might choose to settle but I pray they inform themselves against this sort of terrorism. A easier way to shut PeterP up is just to say, “See you in court Scotty”.

I did not write.]]]
I wasn’t quoting you, please re-read original post. If anyone I was quoting DBell and you just stuck your big nose in. (Sorry for the typo, that should read thieves, not thrives)

[[[I did indeed make a reference to the word thievery, but only to insert the word du jour which is now Borrowing.
Clearly you're not comfortable with the word "stealing", ok, can I ask which word you would pick when describing someone who is knowingly depriving someone else of their legally owned Intellectual Property Rights.]]]

It’s the same set of words that I’ve been using this whole time Petey: “unauthorized file sharing”. If that takes you too long to type, I hereby give you permission to use the term “UFSing” or eyou-eff-essing.

[[["Direct question, please answer: Do you think that (1) copyright holders own the actual copies of their works after they're sold, or (2) they only own the right to decide who is allowed to copy their works.

I know you hate direct answers but 1 or 2 Petey."

My answer to you question(s) would be the following James;
The Copyrights remain the property of the rightful owners, whether their Works were copied once or a million times.]]]

Sooo, not a direct answer? This is like the second or third time I’ve openly stated that I agree that copyright owners own the copyrights of their works so maybe you don’t understand because you don’t know what a copyright is?

Heeeere’s Webster:
Copyright: the exclusive legal right to reproduce, publish, sell, or distribute the matter and form of something (as a literary, musical, or artistic work)

I’m not talking about the RIGHTS I am talking about the physical or digital COPIES. If I buy a DVD, I’m granted limited permission to posses a copy of some movie, yes? PETEY, WHO OWNS THIS DVD? If you can’t directly answer this question I don’t see any point to further discussion with you.

[[["I know you hate direct answers but 1 or 2 Petey. "
Very much the contrary James I prefer direct conversation, its all the spinning that causes communication break down. ]]]

Yeah, so would you knock it off already? This is fun and all but I’m starting to get kind of bored explaining this all to you over and over again. I take more time explaining things that I do actually coming up with new and interesting arguments and if I wanted to do that I’d be chilling with my 2 year old.

Software Accuracy ?!?!?!The document referenced by Mike says that the forensic software Canipre employed was “GuardaLey Observer v1.2″, which is the product of a company called (surprise) GuardaLey.

So Canipre does seem to be using 3rd party software in its tracking efforts.

What would be interesting is knowing what kind of effort GuadaLey puts into validating their software. Do they operate like the old dot-com companies and do seat-of-the-pants development and testing? Or do they operate like an engineering company and employ a rigorous methodology consisting of product documents, functional specifications, design documents, comprehensive test plans, etc, with reviews and proper execution on them?

The difference between the 2 is like having an eye witness that says “kinda looks like the defendant” vs having several eye witnesses that say “it was definitely the defendant”.

I’m off for the nightThink I’ve said all I want to say for today, I’ve still gotta finish a letter to TekSavvy and maybe write some stuff to send to the local papers. I’m hoping that via TekSavvy and the papers I can reach as many defendants as possible so no one feels like they have to go it alone.

One last though, some people were asking why TekSavvy is being targeted and not the other ISPs. Well, this might just be the tinfoil hat talking but I’m wondering if they haven’t already requested the names from Rogers and Bell and those two just handed them over without a fight. Anyone familiar with their privacy policies got something to obliviate this?

@JamesG“Think I’ve said all I want to say for today, I’ve still gotta finish a letter to TekSavvy and maybe write some stuff to send to the local papers. I’m hoping that via TekSavvy and the papers I can reach as many defendants as possible so no one feels like they have to go it alone.”

Software engineering vs civil engineering and why the difference matters hereNobody expects a bridge to fall down due to a design or implementation or testing flaw. The odd time it happens, someone gets in legal trouble. Everyone (especially the people who create it) expect software to “fall down” in some manner. And when it does, the worst thing that happens is that a customer *may* look for an alternative.

Given that the cost of software failure (e.g. false positives) can have ruinous effects on people in this case ($10,000 is ruinous to some people), shouldn’t there be some requirement for GuardaLey to be able to objectively demonstrate the accuracy of their product. Or are defendants supposed to just take their word for it being 100% accurate and bug free?

JamesG said: Direct question, please answer: Do you think that (1) copyright holders own the actual copies of their works after they’re sold, or (2) they only own the right to decide who is allowed to copy their works.

PeterP said: My answer to you question(s) would be the following James;
The Copyrights remain the property of the rightful owners, whether their Works were copied once or a million times.

and you come back with this:
“Sooo, not a direct answer? This is like the second or third time I’ve openly stated that I agree that copyright owners own the copyrights of their works so maybe you don’t understand because you don’t know what a copyright is? ”

I didn’t think it necessary to point out the obvious 101 stuff JamesG that the plastic and packaging the Works came in weren’t part of the Copyright.

You say “Heeeere’s Webster:

Copyright: the exclusive legal right to reproduce, publish, sell, or distribute the matter and form of something (as a literary, musical, or artistic work)”

yup that would be where the copyrights apply, 101 stuff JamesG.

You say: “I’m not talking about the RIGHTS I am talking about the physical or digital COPIES. If I buy a DVD, I’m granted limited permission to posses a copy of some movie, yes? PETEY, WHO OWNS THIS DVD? If you can’t directly answer this question I don’t see any point to further discussion with you. ”

I thought I had answered you? I’ll type slower this time, k?

You forever own the copy you legally acquired, and, enter into a non-exclusive licensing right granted to you by the Rights holder with respects to the Works.
Read the Terms of Use on the packaging.
Same can be said for legit websites that offer digital media for sale, read the terms of use on the site.

I’m not aware of any limit on permission to posses a legally acquired copy though.

You say: “If you can’t directly answer this question I don’t see any point to further discussion with you”

JamesG it doesn’t get any more direct than that I’m afraid.

and after reading this: “Yeah, so would you knock it off already? This is fun and all but I’m starting to get kind of bored explaining this all to you over and over again. I take more time explaining things that I do actually coming up with new and interesting arguments and if I wanted to do that I’d be chilling with my 2 year old.”

- Are the terms and use of the DVD, software, etc required to be on the outside of the packaging so that I can read them prior to purchase?

- If not, are stores legally required to take an opened product back and give me my money back if I don’t agree with the license agreement once I open the package and read it?

- If the terms, etc are required to be on the outside of the packaging, can there be a legal expectation that the sale represents a binding contract if the purchaser did not first read said terms, etc?

- If the terms, etc are required to be on the outside of the packaging, can there be a legal expectation that the sale represents a binding contract if the purchaser is unable to read said terms, (e.g. is blind)? How about if they’re too young to fully understand it (not to mention that I believe minors can’t enter into contracts)?

Interestingly the company who sells and maintains the software that was used to identify the IP’s in question in this case, have been successfully sued by at least one law firm they partnered with to go after people allegedly downloading copyright material online. It seems the software is not without flaws, and does indeed produce false information.

James, TekSavvy already made it very clear that they can’t help you. They have to comply with any legal court order..period.re:news media.. this story WAS all over the place last week or whenever it was..its not news anymore. Now IF these guys do manage to convince a privacy conscious Canadian judge that there is a good enough reason to grant the order, which may happen, you will get another letter with the actual claim. Someone mentioned that all you need to prepare is a statement of defense and thats entirely true. It would be worthwhile to get a lawyer for sure but thats not always feasible either, but there are options out there for folks with limited resources and im sure you have plenty of time. I think its a bit premature to be freaking out over a might-happen. But its a bad bad idea to ignore it…

with the rest of this thread i got disoriented by the [[[use]] [[[of]]] [[[brackets]]] but seriously folks i don’t think anyone here is much of a shill..just people concerned about the future of the media we love to consume.

So close‘k this was fun but, go home now (and you’d better now be charging overtime on this). To recap:

JamesG lays out argument: “What I am arguing, and what you carefully glossed over, is that there is nothing in this process that remotely resembles stealing, thievery, piracy or any of the alarmist monikers given to file-sharing (legal or otherwise) by copyright apologists like our comrade DBell. ”

PetePostoptochokolis responds with a compromise: ” Clearly you’re not comfortable with the word “stealing”, ok, can I ask which word you would pick when describing someone who is knowingly depriving someone else of their legally owned Intellectual Property Rights.]]]

JamesG offers: “It’s the same set of words that I’ve been using this whole time Petey: “unauthorized file sharing”. If that takes you too long to type, I hereby give you permission to use the term “UFSing” or eyou-eff-essing. ”

So unless you want to get into the semantics of the whole thing, which I’d rather not, or you have a better term than “Borrowing” *seriously, who says Borrowing*, which I rather doubt, let just call it a night, shall we?

Ya see how civil conversations can be if we just get to the damn point?

PS I get bonus point for getting you to say “I sure as hell won’t reply to you again.” and then replying to me again. Tahtah!

Fining not possible1. America has decided an IP Person
2. The Plaintiff has serve a Small Claim to the alleged Defendant, with appendix pages taken from Canipre and the Defendant’s ISP
3. The ISP may not provide that info without a court order
4. If the Small Claim waqs filed in the local Court Registry, it also includes a copy of “Reply to the Claim” for the Defendant
5. The Defendant can deny any allegations based on:
a. Yes I downloaded movie ABC as alleged, but it was not successful due to the bits not able to be assembled into file;
b. The file was corrupted and not watchable;
c. The movie file has a readme file telling me to go to a certain website to get a key and I failed;
d. The movie palyer cannot play it because the opening screen requires me to buy a player from a certain website;
e. I never downloaded that movie or have that downloaded movie;
f. All of the above
6. The Plaintiff then has an option to cancel or proceed with the Claim;
7. A Settlement Conference is scheduled for a Small Claim Court Judge to hear both sides and settle the Claim out-of-court. If enough of these Claims were filed in a local Court Registry, then the waiting time could be very long.
8. At the Settlement Conference the Defendent can insist on any of the points in (5) and let the Judge decide.
9. If the Plaintiff persists to set a fine, case is brought to the Small Claims Court for a formal hearing, and again, that may take months or years.
10. The Defendant can say the same point 5 reasons. It is now up to the Judge to prove, and this proof must be presented by the Plaintiff.
11. The Plaintiff may seek a court order to search the Defendant’s house and seize the computer(s)
12. It will take lot of $$ from the Plaintiff and months to get the Sheriff to do this job.
13. The Sheriff came to my house and wanted to seize my computer(s) while I was watching the downloaded movie ABC. So I pulled out the plug and handed off the computer.
14. The Plaintiff reclaimed that computer and turned it on, and found it needs a Windows password to log in.
15. The Plaintiff gets one of his staffers, specifically hired for this purpose, to break the administrator password.
16. Now they can see all my files and drives and found there are drives that was locked by bitlocker and cannot access any of them.
17. They cannot legally cut me up to get that secured password.
18. Then they try brute force to break that secured password which would take 50 years or so…
19. The max they can extract from all these … is $5000 or most likely

Man oh man,I just can’t believe this is happening, it’s like destiny. Funny really. I think Teksavvy should counter-sue the plaintiff on grounds of defamation and seek appropriate damages as they are a public service provider and this disclosure is bad pr. Copyright was never intended to be a big deal, but regrettably everyone is a genius when it comes to the all-mighty dollar.

Communication is the prime instinct of man, that’s what makes us wish well. (This is either the beginning or the end of an era.) Everything is inspired, that’s why some songs sound the same. You can’t give everyone a gun and not expect anyone to get hurt. In this case, everyone has personal recorders that are interconnected with a capacity nearing infinity (if compressed right). I think that the day of privateering is gone. Big record labels should be abolished along with big sports teams.

Anyhow, those of us who are close to the court house for the Dec 17 appearance really should get out with picket signs. Send the message out that we are not going to stand for this. Every Canadian has an equal right to the infrastructure that has been constructed within our cities. Every Canadian has an equal right to games, theater and music. Let us become so saturated with our collective works that the man sitting next to you can recite every Gladiator line and Monty Python jingle. Only by this collective openness can we begin to learn to evolve.

We tried to push the inevitable, we reveled in our luscious halls with marvelous scripts and wondrous lore. Now it is time for war.

Fining not Possible Part IIPoint one should be “America has decided an IP does not equate to a Person” So the Plaintiff has to prove and fix that name to the Small Claims form.

continuing..
19. The max they can extract from all these … is $5000 or most likely $100. I WILL NOT PAY.
20. So the Plaintiff has to so more legal works to get the money from me, a lien? a garnishment?
21. I still won’t pay.
22. Meanwhile I will put a blog on the Internet to chronical all these, and may be able to make a few dollars from the advertizers. But even so, I still will not pay.
23. It is up to the Plaintiff to esculate to a higher Court, and which may cost them a lot more than what would eventually get from me, zero.

Copyrights, patents, and trademarks all have different origins under the law and using a blanket term like “intellectual property” makes it difficult to speak precisely about the law. In Canada we have separate copyright, patent, and trademark acts for all 3 distinct concepts:

The word “borrowing” to describe copying is being disputed above for the same reasons “theft” is not being accepted: they both imply that copies share their important properties with physical objects when they do not. For example, copies can’t be stolen, only made. Similarly, if you mean something more like “theft of a moral right” rather than of a copy itself, again, it isn’t theft per se, it would still be called infringement. Moral sentiments aside, discussion might be better served by calling a copy a copy, an infringement an infringement, and a copyright a copyright. I have never actually met a pirate.

Um, they already have by a) giving James a head’s up b) urging him to seek legal advice c) not handing the information over like other ISPs but getting a lawyer and demanding a court order. This is all very helpful.

As for shills, PeterP is probably exactly that and him being here is quite logical as Dr. Geist is doing exactly what Voltage doesn’t want; informing their potential victims. PeterP’s points could have come right from their own lawyers and he ignores the overarching point that the money Voltage is demanding is beyond unreasonable. I can’t imagine why anyone outside of that demented circle of jerks would say the stuff he’s being saying here.

History has shown us things considered moral can come to be considered immoral over time: E.g. slavery, suppression of women’s rights, spanking one’s children. The opposite holds true, immoral can become moral: E.g masturbation, women exposing their ankles in public, pre-emptive military attacks on “rogue” states.

There is an avalanche of change with respect to the perceived morality of sharing media, and I wish you good luck on your crusade against this. “The times, they are a changing.”

interesting subjectsWow, I’m impressed by this forum! There are no doubt some really childish things said by some and then people attempting to argue them which seems to drag on forever. On the other hand, there are some really interesting points made by some that are truly mind opening. Several good points made here that I for one hadn’t considered, and I’ve been following this whole thing quite closely reading through everything on a daily basis.

Questions on the Legality of Voltages Actions1) How can Voltage demand information on alleged IPs that downloaded the movie prior to The Copyright Modernization Act (Bill C-11) officially coming into effect on November 30, 2012?

2) Wasn’t the “evidence” collected unlawfully? Canipre collected IP addresses of millions of Canadians without their knowledge and without the consent of the law (i.e., a warrant), BEFORE Bill C-11 came into effect (which means that, until November 30, the old laws were still in effect, and therefore downloading was not explicitly addressed)…

No. During the process of downloading or sharing files via the BitTorrent Protocol your IP address is widely broadcast over the internet. Anybody, even with very simple technology, can see who is sharing what via BitTorrent.

That said, once you’ve downloaded a file nobody, except through a court order, can legally take a look inside your laptop.

How Does Anybody Know What I’ve Downloaded?

When you use BitTorrent to download a file, your computer sends out a request to have that file sent to your IP address. The request is public by necessity (it’s the only way other computers know where to send the file). Film, music and software studios monitor these requests and compile them, either for reporting purposes or for civil enforcement actions.

Typically, they will only monitor for the files that they’re interested in. If you’ve made a request for that file, chance are good that your IP address will be on record. See â€“ Three Hours and You’re Busted

How Do They Get My Name?

BitTorrent programs share files using IP addresses (the unique identifier associated with your computer). Your ISP (Internet Service Provider) will have a record that associates your IP address with you. If a studio can convince a judge that your IP address is associated with copyright infringement the judge may order the ISP to release your name and contact information to the studio.

Is This Legal?

Yes. This was ruled on in 2011 by Justice Shore who quoted BMG Canada Inc. v. John Doe, 2005 and confirmed:

[...] in cases where applicants demonstrate the legitimacy of their claim that unknown persons violate their copyright, they have the right that the identity of these people is revealed them to be able to sue [...]

PeteyP FiredI think his boss had to let him go because he wasn’t doing a good enough job scaring the informed. He is probably spreading his propaganda to old ladies trying to get them to pay what little savings they have left… One word… LOSER.

The article mentions someone named Crossley without really explaining who he is. Some googling suggests it may be a (ex-?)lawyer by the name of Andrew Crossley who was suspended for 2 years, possibly in connection with work with GuardaLey.

Guys i don’t know if its fair to sideline a could have been interesting discussion with finger pointing an accusations. If this person is a troll, why would they be in here trying to educate people, wouldn’t it be more useful for this “troll” if people stayed ignorant?
Can we get back to the discussion please?

The only reason this scheme continues to operate is that someone believes it to be profitable. Where does this profit come from? People like you â€“ scared into paying up by a letter designed to do just that.

The best part of this info package in my opinion … this nugget:

“People like you are their only source of money. It is important that you part with as little money as you possibly can. I can tell you now the exact percentage of the 60-85% of people that *DID NOT* pay that ended up in court. ZERO. The scheme relies on easy payers.”

So take heart, this is nothing new, just a kick at the can in Canada to see how easy marks we are. If you have been targeted in this manner you at this point have basically three choices:

1) Ignore it. This is the easiest route, and may very well be effective, but there have been instances of summary judgments so do this at your own risk.

2) Pay the extortion fee. This is the next ‘easiest’ option and your circumstances may make it the only choice. But understand doing this will just encourage them and make it more difficult for everyone. Plus the ‘bad’ guys win.

3) Be proactive. Follow the advice in the above resource, by showing you will not be an easy mark they will in all likelihood pass over you. Plus it will make you feel good.

Disclaimer: IANAL nor affiliated with this blog in any official capacity. Even though copyright trolls are operating within the legal framework I just hate to see our legal system abused in this manner. I also think this is a disservice to artists and creators inasmuch as it creates an adversarial environment, there are much more positive and productive ways to tackle the issues the digital era has brought up us.

GuardaLey II Googling also reveals multiple references to GuardaLey having been (successfully?) sued by a German law firm they partnered with, Baumgarten Brandt, for not disclosing several technological flaws GuardaLey was aware of concerning their evidence gathering mechanism – i.e., false positives.

So GuardaLey was sued by its *partner* who were *lawyers* for not telling them everything they should have. If you’re willing to mess with your own partner, who happens to be lawyers, of all things, then you gotta wonder how much care GuardaLey uses when going after ordinary Canadians.

It’s hard to get a real citation on this (probably because it happened in Germany, AFAICT), but the below PDF seems to mention it on page 11. The whole PDF is worth a read if you’re up for it.

Yes! Write to your MPEveryone who gets a letter needs to do exactly that, they are trying to use the Canadian court system as their henchmen and that is unacceptable. You need to remind them that when C-11 was introduced that the “industry” made assurances that they wouldn’t be trying to pull the stunt that Voltage is trying to do. That law was crafted to take on the real pirates, the ones who make counterfeits and money.

I guess Voltage isn’t going after those guys because they didn’t bother with their catalogue, if it doesn’t sell in theatres and DVD why would it sell on the street? Not much point in pirating crap I suppose.

@Guy>If this person is a troll, why would they be in here trying to educate people, wouldn’t it be more useful for this “troll” if people stayed ignorant?

If you’re referring to PeterP he wasn’t educating, what he was doing was repeating Voltage talking points like
a) settling is what you should do!
b) they’re are right to ask for and will receive punitive damages so you’d better settle!
c) bittorrenting is theft! If you did it you are bad and you should feel bad but if you give Voltage a lot of money you’ll be washed of your sin
d) Dr Geist is wrong, there are no caps because… reasons.

I have no doubt that Voltage’s hired trolls are reading these very words (hey guys! You lost in the US and I learned today you lost in the Uk and you’re going to lose here) because they would most certainly have a propaganda prong to their attacks. They don’t want people to understand what is going on (read about the various cases and you’ll see that fear and ignorance are their two most powerful weapons) they want them to be sandbagged into paying. Even if they didn’t download the movie they would like people to think that it would be cheaper and easier to pay them off to go away.

I also have no doubt that they thought Canada and Canadians would be an easy mark and soft target (we are a polite unarmed bunch after all), Germans thought that. Twice. Didn’t work out so good for them and it’s not going to work out for these jerks either.

PeterP however is welcome to explain how he thinks someone downloading a movie should be on the hook for $10,000+ (the amount that Voltage is demanding). Is there any sane mind that would think that fair to even ask?

If Voltage truly cared about IP and copyright they would have sent TSI a notice saying “These IPs are distributing our stuff without permission please forward this letter telling them to stop. If they don’t we would like you to discontinue them as your clients.” Now, think about that? I’d say that would be more than fair, it would probably get TSI’s cooperation and would make for a workable law.

But that’s not Voltage’s bag, they want to loot and pillage so F them and F anyone who helps them.

Well taking something for free that isn’t supposed to be free is stealing isn’t it..whether you physically went somewhere and took it or got it from bitorrent. One is just a bit harder to price I guess. The limitations talked about in here are only going to apply in the best case scenario…with people so up in arms about it I wonder what they have to hide? Again it seems like a pretty big spaz attack for something that hasn’t even happened yet

For sure there’s a lot of bad justification going on at the moment, but that’s not the reason why people are up in arms .

It’s all the about the disproportion between the act and the money asked for it, and the dangerous place where it is bringing our legal system if we let this go. Should you be able to make more money by having people steal your product than by having them buy it?

I wouldn’t mind if Voltage goal was really to protect its copyright. If it was asking for 50$ to cover the copy of the movie and another 50$-100$ for the trouble of having to monitor the internet to make sure its copyright are protected, whit the message that let’s hope you learned your lesson, we are watching you, please stop downloading. I’m guessing that’s what the government had in mind when they built the law (damages from 100 to 5,000$).

But now they are just using the legal system to bully people. The main thing is that it’s not the big “downloaders” that will be suffering as those people are here reading the blog to find ways to defend themselves, it’s the single mom who doesn’t know anything about downloading, but whose teenager downloaded the movie so she received the letter and preferred to pay the settlement because she was afraid of going to courts. Is this the way we want our legal system to be used?

@ GuyGrunt writes: If you’re referring to PeterP he wasn’t educating, what he was doing was repeating Voltage talking points like

a) settling is what you should do!

What I actually said was: “I would agree that to settle for a situation or crime that you didn’t commit it a complete disservice to oneself; however, for those who did commit copyright infringements, defending those actions in court is very costly.”

b) they’re are right to ask for and will receive punitive damages so you’d better settle!

I never said that either, my posts are all here, what I did say was both parties are within their legal rights to pursue the merits of their claims(s).

c) bittorrenting is theft! If you did it you are bad and you should feel bad but if you give Voltage a lot of money you’ll be washed of your sin

That I never said or even implied that one.

d) Dr Geist is wrong, there are no caps because… reasons.

Again, I never said that either.

“I know you hate direct answers but 1 or 2 Petey. ”

I said: Very much the contrary James I prefer direct conversation, its all the spinning that causes communication break down.

And that’s exactly what Grunt did.

@ 2ManyTrolls
I am not a gay man this Petey thing you got going on I’m flattered but can you please find another gay guy to hit on?

@PeteyPMaybe if you didn’t jump to so many conclusions in life you wouldn’t be the dick you are? My communication skills are just fine Petey but you sure seems like a dick that has nothing better to do than misinform the public. Why else are you here day in and day out? I suggest you spend your time doing something else rather than try to swindle peoples savings. But hey then again, a low life is a low life.

@PeteyPI think we can all come to the conclusion that you are the mentally unhealthy one. Why else would someone take on the task of trying to extort people’s savings? I suggest you stop jumping to so many conclusions in life but hey a dick is a dick and you just can’t help yourself. Just like that BMW 328i right Petey? HAHAHAH Maybe you should get a new career you seems to fail at trolling badly. Do you think you are informing the public or misleading the public? I think more than enough people woud agree with me so why do you bother to come here if you have nothing at stake? Get a life loser.

@Guy>Well taking something for free that isn’t supposed to be free is stealing isn’t it.

Quite right but that’s not what we are talking about. If someone downloads a file off of a torrent what was taken that isn’t free? If Voltage offered their films on a website for a fee and someone hacked it and downloaded them then yes, that’s a clear case of theft. If someone who subscribed downloaded the film and then uploaded it to their own pay site that would be theft. If someone downloaded it, burnt it to a CD and sold it? Again, theft. If someone downloads it off the torrents and watches it? How is that different than say making a VHS copy from a TV broadcast? That technically violates the copyright but you think someone should have to pay $10,000+ for doing so? Let’s say I walked into an HMV and recorded the music playing on the speakers, would they call the mall cops to bust me? How about YouTube? There’s tons of copyrighted material there, they take it down it gets put back up, if I watch one of those should I have to pay $10,000? The Internet is real, this is the reality, media now and forever will always be on it, regardless of the copyright. Anyone who thinks otherwise is a fool so now we’re going to clog our court system because some operators have found an angle?

Please address that point, how can Voltage justify their demands? $10,000+ ? That strikes you as reasonable does it?

>Again it seems like a pretty big spaz attack for something that hasn’t even happened yet

It has happened in the US and the Uk, I urge you to read about those cases, how they swept up people who didn’t even know what a bitorrent was! Dragged them to court because they’re a pack of greed heads looking for a payday and complexly uninterested in anyone they hurt along the way. I wonder how many innocent people paid up just to be left alone or out of fear?

You don’t think that calls for some spazzing? Judges in the States and the Uk certainly have “spazzed” over it, why do you read what they say after hearing all the facts and then tell me why they are wrong.

@ 2ManyTrolls – conclusions “I suggest you stop jumping to so many conclusions in life but hey a dick is a dick and you just can’t help yourself. Just like that BMW 328i right Petey? HAHAHAH ”

“I think we can all come to the conclusion that you are the mentally unhealthy one. Why else would someone take on the task of trying to extort people’s savings? ”

I live in Canada, have no affiliation with the production and don’t drive a BMW, and somehow it’s me that “jumping to so many conclusions in life”

You have problems kid and that’s not my business, you and I completely different people and that’s fine, what’s not fine is your abusive and intolerable behaviors – do you really think anyone reading your posts thinks you’re intelligent?, mature, or even level headed?

In any event I can not stop you from posting, nor would I want to, people like you are necessary, you show others in graphic detail what not to be. The only thing I can do is not respond or reply to you and that starts now.
Enjoy!

@PeterP>Justice Marshall Rothstein has a video on youtube:
>http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=oFag6lGFFHY

That’s a 90 minute video, and the first 40 minutes or so which I’ve skimmed over appears to cover issues different than the one at hand (the only similarity seems to be that they are media IP issues). Can you provide some timestamp references so that everyone doesn’t need to waste their evening sifting through it all?

@PeteyPThere is no need to get mad little man. Everyone already knows what you are and you keep on proving it yourself with your non sense. I only hope you get clue because your stubbornness is getting boring and also you are starting to sound like a broken record. Please for the love of god go find a worthwhile career instead of extorting money from people. You know this is a form of terrorism in our society? You must have low self-esteem issues. I sincerely hope you seek professional help for being a liar and a terrorist.

@davegravyNo, not really sure what that was all about, it seemed more focus on fair-use and double-dipping which I don’t think anyone is claiming in the case of Voltage. In fact considering some of the reviews I’ve been reading of their movies making someone pay the ticket price wouldn’t be fair much less $10,000.

But I’m not a lawyer and some of it went over my head, PeterP can you tell us what you thought was relevant or are you off the clock now?

I don’t think there is much of a comparison to setting your VCR to record a show you’re going to miss and how media is distributed over bitorrent, so im not sure im even going there. I will say that we all know better though. I definitely don’t agree that any one individual who downloaded and watched some film should be hit with a huge fine and I think our new legislation is taking that stuff into account. (..but in law, i guess like any negotiation, people aim high to start hoping to get maybe half..if that) The fines for personal infringement are there to be a deterrant, so that the exact scenario you described is less likely to happen again. Nobody is dumb enough to think that anyone can stop filesharing dead in its tracks. We have tons of fines for individuals like that. Some people get caught speeding, some dont..you get where im going with that ya?

The most recent cases in the US and UK had nothing to do with PERSONAL infringement and thats what this is all about. Those same cases in Canada wouldnt have qualified for this limitation so we can’t use them as benchmarks for stuff like this.If you can show me where an innocent bystander was unjustly fined and wasnt able to succesfully appeal, id love to see it. (and id be wondering why someone who didnt do anything wrong wa so quick to settle, wouldnt you?) I don’t think people here are wrong to be concerned at all, it just seems like a lot of paranoia.

Canada has 30 million people and we arent as litigious as the Americans by any stretch. I doubt our court system is going to crack anytime soon. The people writing and interpreting these laws knew exactly what they are doing, and know exactly how technology works. The tools may be new but the principles of copyright are not.

ps..whoever said that the video Peter pointed out was too long…seriously?

There seems to be two discussions running through this thread. Copyright trolling and file-sharing in general. I’ve spoken at length to the first so here are my views on the latter.

Is file sharing theft? … Technically no, it’s infringement. There is a reason it under another section of law. The first being it does not *necessarily* deprive or cause loss.

Is file sharing immoral? … That is a matter of debate and perspective, certainly it is a matter in flux among the public. I choose not to participate in it, but rather support artists I appreciate & who appear to appreciate me. I avoid media from those participate in a negative, restrictive and punitive manner. I encourage others to do the same.

Is file sharing harmful? … Again, that depends. Certainly sometimes, other times it could be beneficial. Those who choose to embed their wares with too much DRM or restrictions are within their rights but are the least able to see any benefits. Those who choose more liberal policies will instead be able to benefit from the good will and patronage of their fans.

Overall I think we would all be better off if the relationship between creators and (for lack of a better word) consumers, was not an adversarial one. This environment is fostered by a number of factors:

1) Greed by those who only take from artists and give nothing back to support or enrich them.

2) Greed by the creative industries who through certain business practices refuse to meet market demand or expectations.

3) The cycle of punitive tactics by industry and the deepening of resentment of the public leading to further infringements.

4) Misinformation and moneyed lobbying attempting to solidify business models not in the best interest of the public, or even creators.

By addressing each of these issues I think we could come to a better place, and to be sure these issues will be addressed; either through enlightened debate and action from government & industry, or the more messy courts and public disobedience. I fear the latter is where we find ourselves.

@ Grunt “But I’m not a lawyer and some of it went over my head, PeterP can you tell us what you thought was relevant or are you off the clock now?”

What I thought would be useful was clarity straight from the SCC.
Many of the questions throughout this thread, i.e: commercial vs non-commercial, private vs public Uses, what the court has determined is “fair-dealing”, streaming vs downloading … it’s all explained in the video.

Grunt this shit “are you off the clock now?” is weird, dude it’s just weird. Not everyone in the world will agree with you or I, not everyone is the same and not everyone has picked a side; to demonize me and to go even further to suggest, actually state in a matter of fact way, that I’m a rep for the studio is just weird.

why settle?It’s clear VOLTAGE is going to be sending out settlement letters if the court orders the IPS to give out personnel information. But why would you settle? If this blackmailing is actually successful in court it’s bassically open season on 1million IP’s as stated by CANIPRE. That being said if you actually downloaded the pieces of crap listed above, odds are you’ve downloaded a lot more. If you settle for the few thousands of dollars VOLTAGE Is asking what’s keeping a second or third company from doing the same? Go to court max fine 5000$ and you cannot be sued for anything downloaded prior to the lawsuit.

@Guy>I don’t think there is much of a comparison to setting your VCR to record a show you’re going to miss and how media is distributed over bitorrent

Sure there is, it’s making a copy without the right’s holder’s permission, when the VHS came out Hollywood had the exact same freakout. The music industry was crapping masonry over stereos with two tape decks. They howled about how it was the end! And what happened? Nada. People still bought tapes. Then the CD came out and the music industry ran to it thinking that copies were never going to be a problem again.

Ooops.

They freaked out so much that the GoC slapped a tax on them and yet people still bought CDs.

Then Napster and on it goes.

And I didn’t say “show you’re going to miss” I said taping a show for someone who doesn’t have cable. Is that something that someone should be taken to court over?

> people aim high to start hoping to get maybe half..if that)

No. The law is not an Arab market. It is not a way to make a profit, it’s there to protect people and make things fair.

>The most recent cases in the US and UK had nothing to do with PERSONAL infringement

I’m sorry, I’m not sure if we’re talking about the same thing? This is what I’m thinking of:

>If you can show me where an innocent bystander was unjustly fined and wasnt able to succesfully appeal, id love to see it.

I can’t because that’s not what’s going on, Voltage doesn’t want to go to court, they want people to settle and there’s no appealing that. We know that the software they use to track IPs is far from perfect, we know that they’ve caught the wrong people up in it what we don’t know is how many of them paid to get out from under.

Because they got threatening letters from lawyers that are geared towards making a settlement seem like the easier and cheaper way to get out of it. I wouldn’t settle, I would fight them tooth and nail, I wouldn’t care if I was paying more for the lawyer than whatever settlement they offered. I would want them to take me to court and I would love to help to shut them down.

>it just seems like a lot of paranoia.

Once again, they’ve have done this in the States, please read the link or research some of your own. This is a real problem and it makes me genuinely angry that these jerks seem to think that the legal system is a gold mine for them to dig up. Voltage is right to want to protect their copyrights, no one is disputing that, it’s how they are doing it and their true malevolent and greedy motivations that are the problem.

>I doubt our court system is going to crack anytime soon.

Unless this creates a precedent. Let’s say they win, the 2,000 are forced to pay $10,000+, not likely but just suppose. What do you think would come next? Our system isn’t going to crack unless we let it. We have barbarians at the gate, we need to soak them in oil and light a match before they get in.

>The people writing and interpreting these laws knew exactly what they are doing, and know exactly how technology works.

Hope so.

>The tools may be new but the principles of copyright are not.

Sure but they’re going to have to evolve, that’s the simple reality.

>ps..whoever said that the video Peter pointed out was too long…seriously?

@Guy>ps..whoever said that the video Peter pointed out was too long…seriously?

Seriously, did I say too long? I do my very best to get involved in national issues which are important to me, I really do. But with a full time highly demanding job, two kids (one of which is NOT in the best of mental health), I am happy for you if you’ve got the free time to watch all of it, and if it interests you, encourage you to do so. For me, 90 minutes represents more than the total amount of free time I have each day, and does also for a lot of highly motivated people I know. I’m merely asking that the information presented be made more accessible to myself and those whith busy lifestyles. I’ll offer up admission that I could have made my request more politely.

@CrockettI think we agree on the ideals. A world where artists get compensated fairly for their works, corporate middlemen get a _reasonable_ cut, and consumers get treated with respect as they do in many other industries. The ideal however should not be mistaken as a BALANCE between what the copy-right and copy-left are fighting for. The ideal doesn’t involve ANY element of DRM, consumer freeloading, privacy-invading surveillance law, mass-lawsuit-friendly legislation, etc. I hate to be a Debbie Downer, but I haven’t heard one proposal that even comes close to achieving the ideal.

Amazing, isn’t it, that life on earth has survived such extreme (and sudden!) changes in environment, though the life forms themselves have had to evolve to make this true. Crazy as it sounds, my instinct is to let this play out, let the media industry apocalypse go forth if that’s REALLY what it’s going to come to. Artists may move on to different professions, industry lobbyists and litigators too. Society may miss them ‘old days of rock and roll.

While unfair to some people over the short term, I’d be willing to bet that enterprising ingenious minds would rise from the ashes and figure out a way to monetize media in this new “Net”vironment, in a more or less fair way, as they’ve done in so many other industries. It probably still wouldn’t be ideal, things rarely are, but it’d be a lot less painful for most than watching dinosaurs writhing in tar sands or bemoaning the passed age of easy prey and temperate climates.

On the other hand, if we leave things as they are and the industry DOESN’T shrivel up and die but continuous to prosper? Well I suppose if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it!

Technically you cant really tape tv for your friend who doesn’t have cable. You’re only technically allowed to do it for yourself.

I read that article a while back. Those guys are total trolls, and maybe voltage are bad players, I don’t know. If they are they aren’t going to make it very far, I like o think Canadians are smart enough to catch on quick.. so again..whats the big fuss all about? I still have yet to see anyone stand up and say they paid one of these â€œtrollsâ€ because of a weird letter. I got a call from Microsoft technical support the other day too, and also have been selected to receive a 10 million dollar transfer from prince whateverhisface..but I still have spyware ..someone bought a 50 inch tv on my credit caredâ€¦and haven’t found the money yet..

I don’t believe that the principals behind copyright need to change much at all. If you follow the history the intention is actually quite honest and fair, and is there to encourage innovation and creativity.

The laws have in fact done exactly what you suggested, caught up with the technology..and we’re surprised or even pissed off about it? We should be grateful for the good old days of looting and pillaging (yes we ALL did it and are ALL guilty) but I think the jig is up (is that the phrase) they’re onto us guys. But its about time, id be really worried if our legislators didn’t catch on.

It seems the media industry can’t see an opportunity when it slaps them in the face. You see it’s all about the fear of loosing control and a myopic gaze at the next shareholders report. Unfortunately, it’s the artists & creators who are the actual losers in the end.

@Crockett“Those who choose to embed their wares with too much DRM or restrictions are within their rights but are the least able to see any benefits [from file-sharing, etc].”

Exactly. Every time I see DRM, I shake my head because I know I’d never willingly pay money for it (pay to be treated like a criminal, no thanks) and I wonder why anyone else would knowingly do so either. Then I try to think about it from their perspective, and it still doesn’t make sense. It’s like a death-throw that only makes them less profitable. (Anyone home Voltage? Do you think this makes people want to watch your stuff?)

I suspect Windows 8′s failure to make a splash has something to do with Microsoft breaking with the Windows history of little-to-no policing of unlicensed installs. “Genuine Advantage” (DRM) was introduced with XP, and XP was the last version that showed real growth (Windows 7 and XP are tied – TIED – after 12 years!). My suspicion is the DRM soured that growth. XP received many negative reviews initially too (like Vista), but at least it was getting installed, because everyone’s kid downloaded a copy and installed it. In trying to reap short-term profits or lock in market share (both reasonable goals), Microsoft shot itself in the foot and lost many of their bedrock technical enthusiasts to Mac or Linux. Moreover, the Windows platform is relied on by lots of people and businesses, and Microsoft shot them in the foot too.

I see what you are saying Grunt, but in my mind there is a difference between gaining market share through unauthorized copies, and gaining share by providing a great product in an unencumbered manner. If we focus on supporting the latter then all the mess with the former will simply go away.

And if someone did it for someone else would anyone even think about taking them to court over it?

> and maybe voltage are bad players, I don’t know.

I don’t think there is any doubt; they have an idea on how to theoretically milk millions from abusing the courts with this nonsense. There are the epitome of bad faith. If I thought that these lawsuits would stop the downloading, if they were asking for reasonable penalties after giving a fair warning and if they had a process that could nail the correct IP with no doubt I would have no problem with them. They’re like some guy who got their car scuffed by another one and now they’re clutching their neck screaming â€œWhiplash!! I’m gonna sue you!!!â€.

> so again..whats the big fuss all about?

Again, the fuss is that some people who had nothing to do with any of it other than having the wrong IP at the wrong time / kids or guests who did it are going to have a headache for the next year. Even if they don’t end up paying Voltage they’re going to have to pay for lawyers and lose time. The fuss is as Dr Geist and others have pointed out it could clog and already clogged court system. The fuss is Voltage trying to work out a legalized form of extortion. They don’t care about innocent or guilty, if they did they would have more evidence than an IP address, they see a get rich quick opportunity and it’s wrong on so many levels.

>I still have yet to see anyone stand up and say they paid one of these â€œtrollsâ€ because of a weird letter.

If you did would you say you did? I suspect in the settlement there is some non-disclosure language. At any rate I don’t think it did anyone who got the letters any good. And let’s say they haven’t been successful yet, doesn’t mean they’re not going to stop and won’t be in the future.

>I don’t believe that the principals behind copyright need to change much at all. If you follow the history the intention is actually quite honest and fair, and is there to encourage innovation and creativity.
Agreed, the principles are fine, C-11 as protection against commercial piracy is also fine. Trying to get $10,000+ from somebody for downloading a movie? C’mon, that makes no sense on any level. Please remember that’s what Voltage wants, their main copyright claim isn’t unreasonable, their demands for compensation and how there are trying to collect are.

>The laws have in fact done exactly what you suggested, caught up with the technology

I don’t think they have, they claim to have a million ips, I don’t think that we can call a million Canadians â€œthievesâ€. Again, the reality is every single piece of media is now on the Internet in a form that can be downloaded, that is a simple fact. The vast majority are going to pay for it because the pay versions are easier, better quality and usually come with a bit more. A minority for one reason or another are going to take the free-way and if the courts open the Pandora’s Box to let copyright holders sue that minority it will never end. Those cases will go on forever and ever and the only ones who will come out ahead are the lawyers being paid to fight it.

It will also drive it further underground. I can guarantee you right now VPN services are enjoying a spike in sales and if Voltage succeeds? They’ll be even more.

@Crockette>If we focus on supporting the latter then all the mess with the former will simply go away.

I don’t think the former will ever go away, in everything humans do there is a always a “black market” of some sort.

What’s great is that in this case it really has no significant effect on the producers. See Psy and his complete indifference to his copyright being ripped off left right and centre! Right now anyone can go and get that damned song for free and yet he and his team have millions.

If Voltage has a brain in their head they would have all their movies on their site for people to watch complete with links to merchandising, DVDs and anything else the could sell. There is a fortune to be made but no, they’d rather sue their audience. Brilliant plan guys!

Eventually that’s what going to happen, ten years from now at the very least all media will be on the net a la cart and again the vast majority will pay, a minority will download for free and everyone will wonder what the fuss was about.

Is addressed in regards to fair-use in the academic milieu, no one is claiming fair use here. The commercial vs non in this case is people downloading the file to make counterfeits for sale vs downloading for personal use and deletion.

> streaming vs downloading

And that has what to do with bittorents and Voltage? That was about SOCAN wanting their cut of ring-tones.

>Grunt this shit “are you off the clock now?” is weird,

It is, how do you work for such people? Do you not care about the innocent ones they’re going to mess up? How did you get this job anyway?

And even people who think that Voltage has a point agree that they’re running an extortion racket demanding $10,000+ yet you seem to ignore that point. Do you think it’s fair for you bosses to ask for that much? I guess you do if they’re paying you in points.

>that I’m a rep for the studio is just weird.

No, they would be monitoring this site as Dr Geist is clearly an authority and they would want to stoke the fear they need to get their payday and your posts here seemed to be geared towards just that.

So in short if you are not working for them you should be.

But answer me this, how did you know about that video? Rather obscure and new, are you a law student?

On and PeterP sounds like a word play on “Peer to Peer” or “P2P”. Sometimes people are too cute for their own good.

No offense grunt or Mr. Geist but I thought he was a professor and not a practicing lawyer?..am i wrong?There are many folks out there who can be considered an authority on copyright laws. Its one think to have ideas and to be an advocate but that’s not going to be a well rounded view. Spend some time reading the blogs and posts by some practicing lawyers and you might see there are 2 sides to every coin. Accusing people of things like working for Voltage is just as naive. Its too bad that the majority of comments are attacks..unless you agree with the majority….ah college days…

@CanadaNewsNetworkHa! Yup, that’s part of my point, I can go to YouTube and download and save (with a simple bit of software) all kinds of copyrighted stuff like Seinfeld and so Sony should be allowed to nail me for 10k?

Of course that’s not quite on point with bittorrents as when you’re downloading you’re also uploading but then again what you’re uploading (if I understand the tech) isn’t usable until the file is wholly formed.

He knows Canadian law, he knows copyright, he’s an authority. Of course it’s open to interpretation but nothing he’s said seems unreasonable.

>there are 2 sides to every coin.

Sure, and sometimes one side is right and the other is wrong. Again, Voltage is right to exercise their copyrights, they are wrong however to go on a fishing trip with big dollar signs in their eyes. Again, that’s the overall point, they are asking for an insane amount of compensation claiming damages that are not there. Again, guy getting bumped in his car and shrieking â€œWhiplash!!!â€ If I am wrong about that please tell me what I am missing.

>Accusing people of things like working for Voltage is just as naive.

Hmm, I would call it more paranoid but I’ve explained my theory and I could be totally wrong, PeterP could just be naturally ignorant. I would call someone who thinks that downloading a movie off the Internet is such an awful thing that $10,000+ is fair compensation. Again, if I am wrong school me! I’ve been wrong about tons of stuff in my life and I don’t see that ending anytime soon.

>Its too bad that the majority of comments are attacks..unless you agree with the majority.

Well if those attacks are justified I’d say its fair play. PeterP is taking the side of a tactic that a real live judge has called â€œExtortionâ€. Again, please if it isn’t then explain how.

@ GruntGrunt says: @PeterP
“Yeah, you keep saying that sort of thing to people here when they make points you can’t answer. It makes me think that they could have hired a better astro-tuffer.”

The “points” I “can’t” (or won’t) answer have nothing to do with law, copyrights, intellectual property or due process, the “points” as you call them are nothing more than paranoid delusion:

A paranoid delusion is the fixed, false belief that one is being harmed or persecuted by a particular person or group of people. Paranoid delusions are known technically as a â€œpersecutory delusion.â€

It involves the person’s belief that he or she is being conspired against, cheated, spied on, followed, poisoned or drugged, maliciously maligned, harassed, or obstructed in the pursuit of long-term goals.

Grunt I’m not a psychiatrist, I have no idea how to deal with paranoid delusions. So not to make anyone’s condition ever worse I’d prefer not to engage.

@PeterPSo that would be you’re not going to address the salient points of this specific case?

And I’m pretty sure Voltage’s demands or their history with pulling this extortion are not “paranoid delusions”. Is that how you manage to work for them? A bit of cognitive dissonance? Telling yourself they’re really not trying to use the law as an ATM all evidence to the contrary?

@PeteyPGrunt he will be trolling these type of boards spreading his propaganda until the court hearing. He won’t answer any relevant questions but volunteer lies and scare tactics repeated from a manual script. I think his time here is done and he should have checked out a long time ago instead of continuing his non sense. It makes absolutely no sense for him to be here anymore and should probably concentrate his efforts on another forum. I only hope there are other informed people to combatant these low lives wherever they slitter towards.

>>PeterP said: @ end user
>>Perhaps the larger of the problems is the lack of factual and accurate information?

Yes the fact is no hard disk media contains any up front warning that the person is going into a contact by buying said disk. How can I go into a contract if I didn’t sign anything or read any of the Terms Of Use and I wasn’t told by your authorized agent that when I buy a disk I’m going into a contract.

PeterP said: @ end user
Look at any media that you may have purchased and read the Terms of Use, its all there for you.I can point it out and even direct you to examples of a “limited, non-exclusive, licensing right” associated with most media, as well as Government websites that explain it in great detail, but it’s been my experience that doing so only makes things worse. And would it not be a better idea for you to read the information for yourself?

What terms of use? I picked up the DVD, walked to the counter and bought it. I didn’t agree to anything, your authorized agent sold me the item with out asking me if I wanted to enter the TOU

Peter please show me a scan or photos of ANY disk that has the term and conditions on the front of the DVD.

If this is a binding contact as you say how can a minor be able to buy your product if they’re not allowed to go into a contract until they are 18. That would mean a parent would have to buy the disk for the minor or the retailer would have to refuse the sale.

If it is as you say how come no media company has ever taken anyone or any second hand store to court for selling item’s they’re not authorized to sell?

Wow. This thread totally degenerated. You guys have to be kidding right? If you only heard about copyrights post-sopa that’s fine. But keep in mind this is only a minor amendment to an already well crafted and mature copyright act

@GuyI disagree. People have a responsibility to question the justness of the law and, in this case, copyright. What you call mature, I would call principally outdated.

The recent (“modernized”) act was heavily contested to say the least, so it is to be expected that not everyone got what they wanted in it. As such, it makes sense that there are still extremely divergent attitudes towards it. Democracy is messy, and (constructive) argumentation is part of that process.

I’m glad people are talking about clearer labeling and what should be considered reasonable damages.

@Guy “… keep in mind this is only a minor amendment to an already well crafted and mature copyright act”

Copyright legislation is mature in the sense that it has been a round for quite a number of years, so the question becomes is it still relevant? I’m not talking about the whole concept, but there have been some major changes in the last few decades, and in the case of the Canadian Supreme Court, in the last few months. Some are ecstatic with these amendments, others prophesying doom. Depending which side of which issue you are on, it looks pretty broken.

We live in an era that has fundamentally changed how media is distributed and consumed, what was well crafted a generation ago may not be as structurally sound today. I am not advocating, as some do, abolishing anything but the whole concept should be on the table for review. Band-aid fixes may not be enough.

uuuh grump, where were you during the public town halls that happened long beofre these amendements were finalized. You could have even given your own presentation, everyone was invited to speak.

clear labeling for CD’s and DVD’s you guys really have me stumped now. I don’t get the logic behind the argument at all. I’ve gotta stop checking this thread and get on with some legit discussions, but good luck with the labelling thing guys, thats quite the shot in the dark

@GuyThe labelling comment is a valid one. If the media you’re buying (eg: a DVD) has a TPM you’re not allowed to break, and has a proscribed usage clause (eg: only allowed to play it on a region 1 dvd player) then it should be labelled as such before you fork out the cash for it, so that there’s no confusion as to what you’re buying.

> guy said: …
uuuh grump, where were you during the public town halls that happened long beofre these amendements were finalized. You could have even given your own presentation, everyone was invited to speak.

Umm they gave us what we wanted with the nice Ohhh unless it has a digital lock on it. So the whole you can do this and this in private but there’s that DRM gotcha.

What Grump was referring to is the disconnect between what is marketed to the public and the reality found in terms of use agreements.

First, what do we hear advertised? “Buy so-and-so movie on DVD”, “Own you copy today”. To the public’s ears that says they are purchasing something that will belong to them, not the copyrights, but the copy itself. If I buy something it seems to follow that I can use it as I see fit. But that is not the reality, what I am actually doing is entering into an agreement on use with limitations. I don’t actually own anything in the transaction, apart from the plastic it is imprinted on.

Case in point, recently in the USA there have been attempts to alter the first sale doctrine, which would would take away one of the few benefits of buying in the first place, the ability to resell said item. If that goes, then the purchaser becomes simply a lessee. Perhaps there should be legislation for the actual rights clearly stated on the package, I don’t think the studios would be very pleased with that.

But said agreement is clearly written in tiny script inside the package somewhere or in a 4000 word text file that is bypassed by “I agree”? If anyone out there can tell me truthfully they stop and completely read those before proceeding I will nominate them for sainthood, yet somehow this is treated as a legal agreement? Seems to me if something is widely ineffective it should not be a legal standard.

Guy seems to think current ‘mature’ copyright is fine & dandy to deal with the quickly shifting realities of the digital age. Maybe if maintains an old model that one is benefiting from, but for the vast majority out there it seems like an old wineskin.

@guy[guy said: ...maybe voltage are bad players, I don't know. If they are they aren't going to make it very far, I like o think Canadians are smart enough to catch on quick.. so again..whats the big fuss all about?]

It’s completely unknown how many people paid settlements before the charges were dropped and only 5%-10% of them fought it in each instance.

Now, given this information, I would find it highly interesting to hear someone argue that they’re acting in good faith or even trying to take legal action against anyone. And yet, despite the fact that it seems as though they can’t or won’t bring real charges to court, they’re still at it.

The big fuss is that I now have to drop everything in my life to deal with this, spending potentially thousands of dollars just to defend what is almost certainly a completely frivolous lawsuit. And guess what, if you aren’t with TekSavvy, it’s totally possible that Rogers or Bell have already given Voltage *your* IP address without a fight and they’re just waiting for this Motion to go through so they can send their infamous letters en mass.

Now, that fact that these cases keep getting filed suggests to me two things:

1) Voltage is making money off of this. I can’t see a B-grade production house like Voltage having the money to throw away on getting personal information that they don’t use (unless they *are* using it for something)

2) There are little or no repercussions for Voltage for filing these Motions so long as they don’t go to trial.

Now, I’ll concede that it’s possible that Voltage isn’t merely trolling for settlements and that they actually are trying to protect their investment but if that’s true I can’t imagine what it would take to prove that they’re trolls. They already have 2 cases (that I know of) where they were just given personal user information with no safeguards to ensure that it was used to bring legal action. How many times should they be allowed do this before being penalized for wasting the courts’ time?

From my copy of the Notice of Motion (Court File No. T-2058-12) Voltage claims to be “entitled to determine the identity of the Distributors and to pursue its available legal remedies against the Distributors including and accounting and disgorgement of all revenues…[s.14]“. I have no idea what ‘legal remedies’ refers to but it seems to me that it should be something testable so that, as a person who’s personal information they now have, I can later file a counter-suit to have the information destroyed if they have not used it for it’s stated purpose. The way I read it, ‘legal remedies’ means they can use my user info in any legal fashion to try to recoup their real or potential losses.

The problem is that this Motion basically assumes that “the Distributors have: 1) contravened the Copyright Act [s.12]” based on the evidence gathered by their own investigation firm. Now I suppose I could argue that I haven’t actually contravened anything *if* I were the one going to court on Monday. As it stands, my only defense from having my personal information disclosed it my ISP who really has no incentive to do so which translates to me (or anyone else not yet proven guilty) being royally screwed if I have any interest in keeping my personal data personal.

tl;dr
The fuss is:
1) I have to pay to defend myself from anyone who can secure a copyright and scrounge up my IP address.
2) The plaintiff doesn’t have to prove that my IP address is guilty of anything before obtaining my personal information from the courts (or my ISP directly if I’m not with TekSavvy).
3) There is nothing forcing the plaintiff to take legal action against me after they obtain my personal info. I don’t see any legal reason they couldn’t refer my info to a collections agency, use it to spam my social networks or sell it to marketers, all without them ever having to take *me* to court.

OK – the penalty for personal, non-commercial infringement is $100 to $5000. Voltage is seeking $10,000. I’m guessing the initial letters will ask for $2000 to $3000 to “make it go away”.

What I’m still unclear on is whether Voltage has a legal leg to stand on in asking for $10,000. Clearly, the higher number they can frighten someone with, the more like a person is to gladly pay “only”, say, $2500. OTOH, if someone knows the max is $5000 and the min is $100, they are far more likely to take their changes in court, than pay “only” $2500.

@Guy“where were you during the public town halls that happened long beofre these amendements were finalized[?]”

Not that it matters, but I don’t live anywhere near where one of those town halls was held, and I wasn’t even aware of an online consultation until today or I would have copied and pasted something I already had written. I sent letters to my MP (with a stamp) in two different sessions though and specifically pointed out the need for more accessible labeling. I emailed more MPs than I can count on two hands (Prentice, Clement, Moore, CC’ing opposition MPs and related ministries, etc) of course. I signed petitions. I even annoyed my 500+ workmates with mass mail on the topic. Between that and working for a living, I was about as vocal as a person can hope to be. I am on record many times.

The current copyright act does not reflect anything I ever sent to Ottawa.

Reading the online consultation submissions, it looks like I am in good company.

@Jim>What I’m still unclear on is whether Voltage has a legal leg to stand on in asking for $10,000. Clearly, the higher number they can frighten >someone with, the more like a person is to gladly pay “only”, say, $2500. OTOH, if someone knows the max is $5000 and the min is $100, they are >far more likely to take their changes in court, than pay “only” $2500.

I’m unclear too. What I’d also like to know:

Why didn’t they choose a higher value, say $50,000? Is there any applicable penalty to Voltage for sending out letters demanding more money than what they can reasonably expect to receive given the evidence they have? I would think there should be, but IANAL. Are they at risk of such a penalty? Perhaps the choice of $10,000 was a bit higher than what they think they can likely actually get ($5,000), but is defend-able since there’s little precedent under C-11 (e.g what constitutes commercial vs non-commercial infringement, etc)?

Since the 2011 case was withdrawn, I have to wonder if this latest submission could be viewed any differently with respect to that test. I.E., Voltage – arguably – has a history of bad-faith discovery or at minimum wasting the court’s time. I would hope the courts would consider the likelihood (or lack thereof) of Voltage pursuing this as part of a “bona fide case” rather than as an opportunity to send out intimidating collection letters. I think the bar should be set a little higher this time around, especially considering section 38.1 (5), the interpretation guidelines for statutory damages (Darryl’s reference)… Specifically (b): “the conduct of the parties before and during the proceedings.”

If you think Peggy`s story is surprising…, a month-ago my daughter worked and got paid $4859 putting in a 20 hour week from there apartment and they’re buddy’s mother-in-law`s neighbour has been doing this for 4 months and recieved a check for over $4859 parttime from a laptop. follow the advice at this site, Great60.comCHECK IT OUT

CIPPIC today filed a letter with the Federal Court asking the Court to delay hearing a motion, brought by Voltage Pictures, to compel Internet Service Provider Teksavvy Solutions to disclose the identities of Teksavvy subscribers alleged to have downloaded movies the copyright to which Voltage owns. The motion, the supporting evidence to which was only filed on Tuesday, December 11, is scheduled to be heard only 6 days later, on December 17. CIPPIC argues that this is insufficient time for defendants to learn of the motion, retain, be advised by and instruct legal counsel, and insufficient time for CIPPIC to prepare and file an application to intervene in the motion.

It’s a bit like Lord of the Rings, the trolls are at the gates and the fires on the mountains have been lit!

There was a young girl whom everyone called “Little Red Riding Hood,” because she never went anywhere without wearing a cap made of lovely red velvet that her grandmother had given to her.

One day her grandmother fell ill and Little Red Riding Hood’s mother said to her, “I have baked a cake for your grandmother, and bought her a bottle of wine. Here, take them to grandma; they will help her get well.”
Of course, the young girl was happy to help.

Grandma lived in a cottage in the woods, so before Little Red Riding Hood set off, her mother told her,

“Please be careful. Stick to the path. Don’t run, because if you fall over, the cake will get dirty and the bottle will break, and then grandma will get nothing.”

“I will be VERY careful,” Little Red Riding Hood promised her mother.

Little Red Riding Hood put on her coat and gloves and her red velvet cap.
She tucked the cake and the bottle of wine into her backpack.

Then she walked off down the lane to the woods, singing a song she had learned at school.

After she was just a few yards into the woods, a wolf came up to her.
“Well, hello there, young girl,” the wolf said. “Where are you off to?”
Because the wolf was so very polite, Little Red Riding Hood said hello back and told him she was on her way to her grandmother’s home.

“And I’ll bet you are carrying bread and milk in that backpack of yours,” the wolf said.

He had a smile on his face.

“Actually, it’s cake and a bottle of wine. From my mother.”
“For grandma?” the wolf asked.

“She hasn’t been feeling well. These will make her better,” Little Red Riding Hood said.

The wolf stretched his smile even wider.

He seemed like such a nice, friendly wolf, but behind that smile he was thinking: “What a tender young creature this girl is. What a tasty meal she would make. It’s been so long since I’ve eaten anything half as delicious as her!”

Still, the wolf knew he would have to be very sneaky to trap Little Red Riding Hood.

So, when the young girl started walking again, he kept pace with her.

As they walked side by side, he pointed out the flowers to her, and the trees.

“Look,” he said. “Look how beautiful Nature can be. Listen to the birds sing. See what wonderful things you are missing when you rush around all the time, always in such a hurry.”

Little Red Riding Hood raised her eyes.

She watched sunbeams dance between the clouds.

She saw birds scratch their heads with their wings, and flowers of every color you can imagine.

“Perhaps I should take a few minutes to pick a bunch of flowers for grandma,” she said. “That would certainly lift her spirits.”

The wolf turned the doorknob, ran straight to grandmother’s bedside and without saying a word…

Swallowed her up in one mouthful!

Then he put on her pajamas, closed the drapes and climbed into grandma’s bed.

It was beginning to get dark by the time Little Red Riding Hood decided she had collected enough flowers for Grandma.

It was getting REALLY dark by the time she found her way back to the path through the woods.

When she finally reached grandma’s cottage, it was night-time.

She was surprised to find the door to the cottage open. “Grandma,” she called. “Is everything all right?”

There was no answer.

Little Red Riding Hood went in slowly, carefully.

She turned on a light and walked up to the bed in slow, careful steps. Grandma lay very still, the blankets pulled tight up to her chin.

“My,” the girl said. “What big ears you have!”

“The better to hear you with, my child.”

“Grandma, what big eyes you have!”

“The better to see you with, my dear.”

“Goodness me,” said Little Red Riding Hood. “Just look at those large hands!”

“The better to hug you with.”

“Oh, that mouth, grandma. What a huge, gigantic, ENORMOUS mouth!”

“The better to eat you with!”

And in one leap, the wolf was out of the bed and had gobbled Little Red Riding Hood up.

Well, now, of course, the wolf’s stomach was completely full.

He flopped back onto the bed and was soon fast asleep.

You may not know this, but when wolves sleep they snore very loudly.

A little while later, a hunter was passing by grandma’s cottage on his way home after a day’s hunting.

He heard loud snoring and thought, “Oh My! Maybe the old lady is having a nightmare. I better try to wake her.”

As soon as he entered the cottage, he realized that the old lady wasn’t an old lady at all, but a wolf.

And not just any wolf!

The same wolf, in fact, he had been hunting for years.

The hunter was about to shoot the wolf when he realized that maybe the wolf had eaten the old lady whose cottage this was.

In case the old lady could still be saved, the hunter put down his rifle and picked up a pair of scissors.

He snipped open the wolf’s tummy. One snip, two snips and then Ã¢â‚¬â€ the hunter spotted a shiny red cap!

Another snip, then another snip more. Suddenly a little girl sprang out of the wolf’s stomach, in one whole piece.

She cried, “Thank heavens you came to our rescue. It was so dark and frightening inside that wolf.”

A moment later, Little Red Riding Hood’s grandmother pushed her head through the gap in the wolf’s tummy.

She was alive, too.

She was so delighted to have been freed from inside the wolf she did not feel sick any more.

She felt quite hungry as a matter of fact, and soon she, the hunter and Little Red Riding Hood were busy eating cake.

They filled up the wolf’s tummy with rocks and sewed it closed.

After that, the wolf could never catch children or old ladies by surprise anymore, and Little Red Riding Hood did not stray from the path through the woods ever again.
Find Us & Share! Bookmark and Share

Opps! does it mean I can get sued for posting a book, that was already on the web??

Get real peoples.
let’s wait and see where this is going.
and Merry Christmas.

Protesting?If the outside of a DVD in a store shows the copyright license in its entirety that you are implicitly accepting by purchasing a DVD, then stop reading now.

IANAL, so if anything I am suggesting is illegal, please let me know. It is not my intention to suggest anything illegal.

OTOH, if neither of the above apply, tell me if this makes any sense as a means of mass protest of Voltage’s tactics.

Specifically, I am wondering if this makes sense:
- People go to a retail store (preferably one of the large ones) and purchases (yes, purchase) a Voltage Pictures DVD.
- They go home and open said DVD.
- They read the license that they are supposed to adhere to.
- Sadly, they find they cannot accept the restrictions the license places on them.
- Since they were unable to read the license prior to purchase, they now attempt to return the opened DVD at the point of purchase.
- Retail store’s likely policy is to not accept a return on an opened, non-defective DVD. Darn.
- Customer now notifies Voltage that they would like to return the DVD to Voltage and receive a refund on it, since customer cannot agree to the terms of the license.
- Customer informs Voltage of a reasonable amount of time for Voltage to respond (say, whatever Voltage gave TekSavvy) and informs Voltage that if they do not hear back from Voltage within that time, customer will initiate small claims court proceedings.
- Voltage either agrees to the refund (unlikely), or customer sees Voltage in small claims court.

Any enterprising person with more time and talent than me could even set up a web page for the mechanics of sending Voltage a letter and filing a claim in small claims court.

Does this make any sense? Would it be legal? What is the worst case penalty that a plaintiff could expect if the court sides with Voltage?

The above is inspired by those spirited Linux users who successfully got refunds from Microsoft for the copies of Windows that were installed on the computers they purchased from Dell, etc. Not an apples-to-apples comparison, but also not an apples-to-steak one.

I haven’t done this but what concerns me is that they can claim something was done at my IP address, no telling there’s proof their system is correct or the IP’s logs are, but ‘d be left either being extorted or spending and money challenging this in court. It’s an abuse of the legal system.

what exactly is the intent of this organization? are they trying to defend the people or the case? I read the PDF and in some parts it sounds like they are for the people and in others like they are trying to ensure this case, should it go forward, that it isn’t dropped for silly reasons. hard to tell which side they’re on. does anyone know??

@ Chris CIPPIC is on the side of the law. The case should go forward, it needs to be tested, settled and established. What they’re saying, rightfully, is that they and others need more time.

Voltage doesn’t want that, time and education is not on their side, they want to ambush people with threatening letters before they know what’s going on. I have no doubt they’re pissed at TSI for giving their clients a head’s up. Voltage is not interested in laws or what’s fair, what they want is a way to extort money through the court. This is what a judge in the States said by the way, not just popular opinion. If this works for them here in Canada they could make more money from suing people for copying their films than people watching them with their permission.

Imagine the floodgates that would open.

Fortunately C-11 appears to be crafted to avoid that, now we just need a couple of judges to set the precedent that it’s just not worth suing non-commercial infringers.

This lawsuit is doomed to fail. Read why.To all who are reading this; this case has no merit whatsoever and is doomed to fail. Unless the ‘defendants’ hand over their hard drives with the files on them there is no way (read NO WAY) that this company can win this lawsuit, for the simple reason that they cannot undeniably prove that the file had been downloaded by a person in question.

Reason is that modems are easily hacked and cloned. When modems are cloned, the IP address of the victim with the original modem shows up, not the person physically downloading the illegal file with the cloned modem. So what happens is, a threat is sent to the person who owns the original modem, and consequently has no idea what just happened. I know, because I have seen this myself. A modem can be cloned in less than 5 minutes using one paragraph of simple intructions.

My advise to Teksavvy is to demontrate how easy it is to clone a modem and make it clear that issuing the names/addresses of the IP addresses they wish to obtain in no way guarantees the actual offenders. No court in any civilized country will allow this with such lack of evidence.

Putting on my devil’s advocate hat, I’ll ask if it’s really that easy to clone a modem? I’ll grant that having a home router or PC spoof a MAC address is relatively trivial, but I’m unaware re the ease of cloning a modem.

Cloning a modemIt is possible to clone a modem albeit difficult and you have to have some knowledge.

OTOH you could have taken every precaution reasonable (such as securing your Wifi with WEP/WPA which are easily breakable) and still have your neighbors kid hack in and get your SSID. This could be happening for a very long time unbeknownst to the defendant.

So is the burden of proof on Voltage lawyers to prove it was you ? or is the burden of proof on the defendant to prove it was not them ? As many have said on this forum, an IP address leased out is leased out to the broadband modem, NOT to an individual. Further, MAC addresses can be easily spoof it simply takes an ifconfig command in Linux or a registry change in Windows to do so. spoofing IP addresses is a little more difficult given ingress/engress filters at TekkSavy etc.

If you believe you have been unfairly targeted by Voltage, then the best course of action is to get a lawyer and fight it and help set precedence.

It’s not criminal it’s civilSo the burden of proof is probability. The IP address and time stamp make it probable that you did download/upload the bittorrent. Now what they can’t prove without looking at the hard drive is what you downloaded, it has to be whole before you can use it as a movie, until then it’s just a bunch of 1s and 0s.

So at best with an IP they can say you probably downloaded something that could have been their stuff.

If that’s all they have I can’t imagine a judge thinking that’s worth $5,000 dollars.

But we won’t know until they got to trial and it gets settled so yes, anyone who gets the letters should at the very least get a lawyer to write one back saying seeing you in court. Odds are Voltage will go after those who don’t respond or decide to represent themselves. That’s been their apparent pattern so far.

Proof on the balance of probabilities Proof on the balance of probabilities is what Voltage lawyers have to work with. It basically states that they only have to prove 50% which is good enough. However, one can easily counter this by stating an IP address could have originated from any computer from inside and outside the house. Thoughts ?

AgreeAgree with you Grunt. If I were to get one of those letters at the very least I’d have my lawyer write back a letter of intent to challenge. I’d assume there’d be a long drawn out discovery process as well. If even a small percentage of folks went to their lawyers, I suspect Voltage would back down after calculating the probabilities / $$$ they’d have to spend. Given their track record, litigation is not what their after if history is any indication here.

Will the bigger movie houses follow suitWhat’s interesting here is whether the bigger movie houses pursue the same course of action that Voltage has here. All indications from the US is their not interested in doing so.

Wrt:
“So the burden of proof is probability. The IP address and time stamp make it probable that you did download/upload the bittorrent. Now what they can’t prove without looking at the hard drive is what you downloaded, it has to be whole before you can use it as a movie, until then it’s just a bunch of 1s and 0s. ”

Actually, they know exactly what you downloaded. How? Well when they (Canipere) are part of the swarm of bittorrent clients, they know of all the leeches and seeders . Knowing all the leechers and seeders of a particular movie, they know your IP address granted to your modem and which movie that IP address was downloading. That IP address however belongs to your modem but not you given you may have one or more devices in your house and your neighbor could easily be running that torrent.

You are correct that they’d need to acquire your hard drive. I doubt it very much they’d go to these lengths and even if they did people can easily run a DoD wipe on their drives if they wanted

The sad thing here is the software they are using could in fact be picking up the wrong IP addresses so there is no way of knowing this unless they can prove that.

Well folks let’s see how much our private information is protected under this new Act. I for one hope the judge dismiss this motion with vengeance and he/she sends these copyright trolls back with their tails between their legs. I fail to see this attempt by Voltage as any more than an extortion tactic against Canadian citizens.

In reply to AntiC32I hope they send them back with their tails between their legs too. CIPPIC letter to the courts hopefully does not fall on deaf ears. IF not, there’s something fundamentally wrong with our society when these trolls are able to abuse the law and threaten people at will.

Seems to be that each time TSIMark (CEO of Teksavvy) is watching and he doesn’t like a comment it gets blocked or deleted. Where one persists or asks moderators to verify why, then lawful user gets deleted in short order.

This also seems to be a systematic problem throughout DSLreports when civil laws and arguments are mentioned against statutory ones.

IP address could have originated from any computerI’m not sure how strong the whole “Anyone could have used my IP address!” defense is in terms of probability. I can’t see someone driving around looking for an open router (which shouldn’t be open anyway, c’mon people it’s not hard to set up a password) just to download crappy Voltage movies. I imagine there are child porn users that do it (so really, SET YOUR PASSWORD).

What is a better D is that the software used by Voltage produces too many false positives to be trusted (They’ve even been sued over that). Not to mention the people using it are motivated to sweep up as many targets as possible, they reek of bad faith. I mean if you have software sniffing massive amounts bittorent traffic you’re eventually going to get a minority right. Courts tend to frown on fishing trips.

But if they have a hard drive that’s full of bittorrented stuff, a bittorrent client and a guy’s facebook page talking about how he gets all these free movies, well then Voltage would have an argument.

But if they’ve shot out 2,000+ notices then they’ll need a forensics team to go through them all to find the proof. That’s a lot of gigabytes to process for what still would be a maximum $5,000.

The law can be an unpredictable beast, it could all get shut down today (not very likely), it could be punted (CIPPIC’s has a chance of making this happen) or it could go to the next phase (probably).

But what we need is everyone who gets a letter to send one back saying “See you in court” and a judge to look at the facts and establish a proper ruling which would hopefully be; “Voltage, you need more than an IP and you can’t use C-11 as a club to beat money out of people you think might be violating your copyright. Go home.” which has been the case in the States.

AmericanJob.MEL7.COM If you think Ruby`s story is incredible,, last munth my neighbour easily made $8313 workin fourteen hours a week from their apartment and they’re classmate’s step-sister`s neighbour has done this for six months and got a cheque for more than $8313 parttime from their labtop. use the information here..AmericanJob.MEL7.COM

CIPPIC lays out why Voltage is bogus (they put it in legalese but the message is still pretty clear) and now CIPPIC has enough time to make an argument against Voltage getting the names they need for the next phase of their extortion scheme.

Not a touchdown for the good guys but a first down in the Red Zone.

I am using a football metaphor to offset my previous Lord of the Rings one.

confused Mr Geist anyone thinking your blog is for insight and factual information is making a *HUGE* mistake! Your follows have turned your blog into their personal circle-jerk and have confused the f*** out of themselves and anyone else that happens to end up here.
Can someone please point me in the direction of a blog or site that is helpful? PLEASE!!!
Anyone but Grunt or the Crockett-of-shit guy that is. The two of you are pathetic.

a confused momcrockett i agree with jean. i received a letter informing me that my ip was caught downloading films i have a 16 year old son that admitted he did in fact downloaded the movie.
he then told me all the ways he could lie and remain “hidden” on the internet or how WE could put the blame on the people next door!
when i asked him who told him all this stuff he pointed me to this blog!
you people should be ashamed of yourselves not proud like you are.
i retained the law office of Blakes and what our lawyers told us is very much in dark contrast to the BS on this blog.
i hope mr geist gets in trouble for his misleading the public, and i guess you are his ass crockett so i hope you fall as far as he does.
shame on you guys

Tanya (or whoever you are), actually what I said was this …“So take heart, this is nothing new, just a kick at the can in Canada to see how easy marks we are. If you have been targeted in this manner you at this point have basically three choices:

1) Ignore it. This is the easiest route, and may very well be effective, but there have been instances of summary judgments so do this at your own risk!

2) Pay the extortion fee. This is the next ‘easiest’ option and your circumstances may make it the only choice. But understand doing this will just encourage them and make it more difficult for everyone. Plus the ‘bad’ guys win.

3) Be proactive. Follow the advice in the above resource [https://www.dropbox.com/s/bc8nr49vq0ukf9a/Fight Copyright Trolls.pdf], by showing you will not be an easy mark they will in all likelihood pass over you. Plus it will make you feel good.”

If your son did download the movie and you feel what voltage is asking is a fair recompense for that activity then you are certainly free to choose option 2.

But, perhaps it was my advocating for directly supporting artists or not participating in file sharing that offended you? Or possibly pointing out the failure and censure by judges of Voltage’s antics in the USA that caused you alarm?

a very confused momWell considering she just named her lawyer, described her kid and confirmed that he confessed number 2 really is her only option now.

I wonder what Voltage is going to do now? CIP has called them out on their commercial claims so if they go ahead next month as is their case is even weaker, if they strip it out then the max then can hope for is maybe $5,000 but more likley $100.

PeterP your masters should have started small and worked their way up, looks like they’re going to choke on their own stupid greed.

But please, point out what I am wrong about, I’m always happy to be educated, here are my points:

1) Voltage has a right to protect their copyrights.

2) They do not have the right to use the Canadian court system as a blunt instrument in what has been described by a real live law talking judge as an extortion scheme.

3) They do not have the right to go on some crazy fishing trip with software that has been shown to produce false-positives. If the judge today had granted them the information they wanted countless innocent people would have been sucked into their BS.

Sure, I have no doubt that some of the people’s contact info they want did exactly what they said they did but until they can give like a 99.9% accuracy it’s no good.

4) They do not have the right to demand $10,000+, C-11 makes that pretty clear so right there we know they are bad faith players.

5) Every move they have made is explicitly geared towards them getting a payday rather than protecting their copyrights.

for grunt2) They do not have the right to use the Canadian court system as a blunt instrument in what has been described by a real live law talking judge as an extortion scheme.

you have 2 studios mixed up, on purpose?????
the studio that pissed off the judge was Malibu Media a porn studio *not* voltage. look it up peps.
i googled the reasons why voltages case was dismissed and followed a link you posted! can’t you read for yourself grunt?
it was because the IPS didn’t hand over the info in time and the judge could not grant the studio another extension. the judge had no choice but to dismiss, but it was not for the reason you guys keep trying to drill into peoples heads.
nice try guys, but really really weak!
ya ya i know … now i’m a troll

Sorry if I didn’t make that clear but Voltage is doing the exact same thing as Malibu; coming to a court with a bunch of shady IPs and insisting this somehow means their copyright has been violated. Malibu has an edge in that they hope their victims are too embarrassed to fight it.

But please, tell me what the difference is between the two cases, I don’t see it.

@SimonHere is a relevant link to the very studio in question. You will note that in the USA they dropped their cases, just as I have been saying, and it may very likely turn out the same here in the end. I am not a lawyer so don’t count on my opinion, just pointing out what has transpired in the past.

simon you are rightI did same in the morning simon and you are right! why do the peoples here want to confuse the people? I read many of the comments by grunt and the crocket they says many times the same thing that they now says “sorry *if* i didn’t make clear …” but why?

“The studios behind these films are all represented by USCG, who decided to tell the court that they have dropped all of the John Doe defendants whose details were given out by their ISPs. Although the true reason for this decision is unknown, it appears that recent ** developments in similar cases ** may have led to the retreat.”

for the crcket you only lie and lie more! peoples are not all stupid like you hopes for.
or so paranoid that anything you tell will be truth to them. my only question is why you keeps telling lies to peoples?

you say and to grunts points, i think YOU are grunt and are just playing the peoples that come on this site to be the fools for you!!
you are a big liar!!!!!

Pierre, if there is something you consider to be an untruth than please specify so it can be cleared up. Many of the things said in this thread are personal opinions, but if as you say there have been misstated facts (lies) then your help in ferreting those out would be much appreciated.

@Guy I tried to have a sensible discussion. These guys don’t want to have it. I’m a proud troll now too!..Sensible discussion …

@Jean Leblanc “their personal circle-jerk and have confused the f*** out of themselves”
@Tanya “i guess you are his ass crockett so i hope you fall as far as he does”
@Pierre “you are a big liar!!!!!”

In Internet slang, a troll ( /ËˆtroÊŠl/, /ËˆtrÉ’l/) is someone who posts inflammatory,[1] extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as a forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response.

@ CrockettSays – “In Internet slang, a troll ( /ËˆtroÊŠl/, /ËˆtrÉ’l/) is someone who posts inflammatory,[1] extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as a forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response.”

However thats exactly the running theme here!
Grump
end user
James G
Diggit
new2this
Grunt
2ManyTrolls
and you Crockett along with many others

have all posted “inflammatory,[1] extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as a forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response.”

and you consider the comments and concerns of fellow Canadians
@Jean Leblanc
@Tanya
@Pierre

and you consider the comments and concerns of fellow Canadians
@Jean Leblanc
@Tanya
@Pierre
as “trolling” !?

When they use derogatory and crude language (read their posts) against another poster in the forum then yes, they fit the definition just fine. Top that off with “Lies! Lies!” without actually specifying what those supposed untruths are, then yes that is trolling. We are all welcome to our opinions but please be prepared to present one.

Steve, apart from my original stated opinion against the TOPIC of this thread (not a participant), please direct me to an instance where I have been anything but polite and presented my arguments. I would be happy to take it as instructive.

2) They lost their opening gambit today and I can’t help but wonder if there was some pre-game collusion between CIPPIC and TSI.

3) The letter CIPPIC sent to the court really does sum up all the problems anyone sensible would have with Voltage’s tactics in this matter.

4) No one is saying that bittorrenting copyrighted material is legal or even proper BUT I have yet to hear any compelling argument that makes it worse than tapping a TV show and give the tape to a friend. It’s a sin but one that is so venial it doesn’t merit all of this nonsense.

5) Voltage is doing themselves no favours, they’re wrecking their brand and encouraging bittorrenting to go deeper underground to VPN. If they had any tactical sense they would have at least waited until they had a fool proof IP tracking system in place. I think that is ultimately what will sink them, courts hate it when you take out the innocent along with the guilty. That usually makes the judge throw the emergency brake derailing the whole train.

And finally thank you Dr. Geist for you insight and forum, I have learnt a great deal this week.

And to Voltage, I know you’re reading this, you’re not going to win anything but acrimony and lawyer’s bills.

And stop casting wrestlers in your movies, The Rock was a fluke, it’s not going to happen again.

Simple way to clarify this for everyonethere are 2 systems at play here:
1. civil = private = what you do on your own time
2. federal = government = registered business

if you are not a government employee, government agent or doing a function of government AT THE TIME and have not sold anything for a price and there is no receipt or bill of sale or invoice of it you do NOT fall under federal, government, registered business law … you are actually doing civil / private activities which the federal government has no jurisdiction over.

this land is made up of men and women … which do not need to be government employees or agents thereof. it is a CHOICE to be part of government in any way. when you do register in any way you have the OPTION of performing a function of government .. you are not one by default.
It is why civil law is above federal/government law. it is why even federal judges are called public servants. (emphases on SERVANTS … your servants)

sharing anything is NOT a federal or government function … but a private one between men and women under civil jurisdiction. so Voltage, Teksavvy, judge and whole federal system is blowing smoke.

this whole thing is designed to get your name into the public where federal law can put you on a watch list, most likely on no-fly list, harass you and your family and even your friends, stalk you and charge you for any infraction under federal, provincial or local law .. as the government is doing to many civil rights groups, unions, citizens, protesters, and anyone who opposes the conservative / big business backed ideology.

after learning the 2 links you can contact an attorney or many civil rights groups across canada if you’re still not sure. a lawyer won’t help as they are part of federal system and will suck you further into it.

“I think your intent was to (mis)inform ignorant people … That judge and case had nothing to do with voltage”.

True, but it had everything to do with copyright trolling and MY opinion that voltage has no real desire to litigate through to a trial. Which was my point, repeatedly. I may ultimately be wrong in my opinion, but then you may be in yours. There is not much more to be said at this point, we’ll have to wait and see.

Hello Tanya,
Much to our dismay and disappointment our son has downloaded movies and thought he could lie his way out of it. We had a family meeting over the week end and he told us about this site and another called torrentfreaks, what an absolute shame indeed.

My husband and I are furious that a law professors website has been instructing people to avoid their responsibilities and even to download content from the Internet due to the new limitations on non-commercial infringements.
I’ve been talking to some parents and we will be holding a meeting after the holidays to see if we can contact an ethics board to report Mr Geist.

Hopefully the judge lets CIPPIC intervene, that is a hell of a letter they submitted.

Speaking of used dvd sets I found this at a pawn shop yesterday but forgot to grab it http://www.amazon.ca/Alfred-Hitchcock-Masterpiece-Collection-Saboteur/dp/B000A1INJE $29.99 BABY talk about money saving!! God I love buying second hand entertainment. While HULU plus has Alfred Hitchcock I don’t actually own it and anytime they feel like not providing it its over it. This way I RIP the dvd’s or download them and own them for as log as I own the DVD set.

People ask me why I buy so many dvd’s and all I can say is no virtual service will ever be around for ever and since you’re pay a subscription once its over you got nothing. The only thing I have to worry about is keeping an eye on the HD and make sure I have backups or my backups

Someone else’s problem …@Linda Green “My husband and I are furious that a law professors website has been instructing people to avoid their responsibilities and even to download content from the Internet due to the new limitations on non-commercial infringements.”

And where exactly did this ‘instruction’ take place? Please cite your example? Certainly not from Prof. Geist, you will not find one.

This is an open forum where anyone can post an opinion, that as far as I know is still a right of free speech. If there is an opinion here that offends you, then you are welcome to read no further. I find little here that advocates breaking the law, rather the discussion has been about the behavior of some who manipulate the law & courts for their own gain.

As for your son, it is your responsibility to teach him morality & ethics. It is also incumbent on you to monitor his behavior. You can try to blame others but perhaps you should look inward instead.

I just instructed my kids to only use the ADSL account to download stuff as its going through a VPN and use the Cable internet for regular browsing. I don’t need no studio of falsely accusing my kids of breaking their copyrights so they might as well hide ever download. I also tell them if one of the 500+ dvd’s I own is not on the network drive go ahead and download it. We paid for it, we’ll watch/use it anyway we can in the privacy of our own home.

@Linda Green
I’m curious, what specific part of Mr. Geist’s blog do you view as instructing people to infringe copyright?

@Steve
Are you calling me a troll in the Internet sense, or the legal sense? Either way, I’m very curious what makes you feel that way. (I don’t actually think we’ve ever spoken directly.) Can you provide a quote?

I’m a pretty polite person. I don’t (think) I’ve ever called you a troll, or suggested that you are posting under a number of pseudonyms for money.

Ohhh, you guys are going to real-life butt-poundin; jailHey ‘Linda’ and ‘Tanya’. I really hope you didn’t just make posts using someone else’s name and admit to crimes to get them in trouble cause that’d be low, even for the likes of some of the people that routinely troll these threads (looking at you Crockett

If you are real people, and you’re actually so stupid that you admitted to charges on the Internet, well I’m still pissed off at you. Where were you this morning when TekSavvy stood up and defended your lazy selves? Wait a minute, were you guys the heavy-set African-American woman and the gal in the hooker-boots?
/troll

Hey Voltage trolls, we got our adjournment and in January we’re going to show that you’re evidence is bunk. You’re not going to get a single name out of TekSavvy and we’ll set a precedent c-blocking every single copyright troll in Canada. Booya!

@JamesG >>> not so fast …you say: Where were you this morning when TekSavvy stood up and defended your lazy selves?

many didn’t have time to respond nor get to court. many didn’t have the info or resources, and so on.
- judge failed to give 30 days to teksavvy as it needed to verify info and another 30 to customer to respond via paper signed in blue ink
- teksavvy failure to show order to affected customers
- judge failed to show explicit and verifiable proof from plaintiff Voltage/Canipre
- if teksavvy discloses customer then: far reaching problems for customer as authorities now have Name & reason to put customer on watch list & harass in every way in all jurisdictions, (driving, purchasing, selling, Chidlren’s Aid Society, schools, jobs, work, taxes, etc.) => before this the customer was anonymous and free to do according to civil law and as they wished
- how can they use a federal law made within weeks retroactive prior to it against civilians (outside their jurisdiction)?

if names are disclosed (and maybe even if not) there are numerous people who are preparing CIVIL action against teksavvy & marc (CEO), judge, plaintiff, federal government, pm Harper and his wife, for trespassing on their civil rights and inherent rights

@Neil
Grunt made the list too, so I must to have earned a special place in his/her heart for some “hitherto unknown” reason.

For my part, I just like to take every to point out the (important) differences between copyright infringement and theft, as well as assert that copyright law needs a lot of work if it is ever going to reflect public norms.

@JamesG
I am glad you are feeling confident and I hope you are correct: for the sake of everyone’s privacy on the Internet, for the sake of ISPs like Teksavvy, and Internet businesses like Google, for the sake of individuals who want to act even remotely like an ISP as part of the normal use of the Internet (Skype uses P2P technology; should I have to log that?), for the artists who’s reputations with their fans suffer for their publishers’ legal shenanigans, and for the everyone else (consumers who make art, and artists who consume) who still can’t just press “play” and “create” after 20 years of this knuckle-dragging. (Use this time constructively for your fight, and please keep us informed when you can. I wish you lots of luck.)

@guy
You might be interested in the writings of Andrew Orlowski of theregister.co.uk. I believe he originally came up with the word “freetard.” He might be willing to license his idea for you to use in your own writings.

JamesG, if by ‘troll’ you mean someone who is a verbose yet polite, pro-creator, anti **AA, anti copyright bullying, non (illicit) file-sharing, artist supporting copyright junkie dedicated to opposing the abuse of our legal system from a misguided self destructive navel gazing media industry … then yeah I can see it

Law is flawedThis lawsuit should be overthrown until gov’t builds a proper firewall on consumer information when a foreign company requests for this data, especially from â€œTroll lawyersâ€.
Its time to reset this law for a later date in 2013, Canadians have been warned and this alone should help the FilmMusicMedia industry from further erosion on sales on growth.
There are no assurances that you will not be charged and arrested when you cross over to the USA.
These lawyers can easily find gaping holes and opportunities which will slaughter Canadians like lambs when they cross over the border. The Bail Bond itself will be equivalent to a house mortgage, since there is risk of you not returning to the states.
The punitive damage is quite excessive which includes possibly jail time when you compare it to Canada and other nations.
In 2013, you will read new stories on Dad going to jail, when going to Disney Land with wife and kids, in the states due his children downloading habits.

The Federal and States laws do not necessary correlated with each other. For example, people that grow medical marijuana in a state where it’s legal are thrown in jail and sentence by the Federal government [https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/grant-full-pardon-chris-williams-man-facing-80-years-prison-legally-growing-medical-marijuana/PgtWfvFg.]
The ISP should pass the information to a Canadian Privacy agency for them to submit the notice and legal action in behalf of the legal firm to protect the identity of individual from being prosecuted in a foreign land, especially for a 1st offense.

@ TeckSavvy UserThere are many forms of Law … you just need to learn which ones apply to you or a particular situation.

Sharing is NOT against the law as there is no money exchanged nor a bill of sale made. It is not theft as it’s only a copy of original work. Besides, there is registered commerce (via government), private commerce and anything outside of government … big differences between them.

Federal, provincial, county, city and local Laws don’t apply to civilians unless they are performing a function of government AT THAT PARTICULAR TIME. They are made for anyone in the Government system (statutes, acts, legislation) so they don’t abuse the Civilians or anyone else outside their jurisdiction. It is the LOWEST form of Law.

See my previous links here for more … and learn. After or as you learn you need to stand up for your rights or you will loose them. This is why we have Civil Rights groups.

My son complained that his download/upload stats seemed very high as he only does email and the occasional search. Turns out anybody within range could log on to his connection as he did not have it password protected. So if his neighbour downloaded a movie by using my son’s IP who is responsible? Further, cracking WEP, WPA or WPA2 is now easily done with a variety of cracking programs available on the net. Dec. 20th issue of Windows Secrets tells how to get and use Backtrack to crack WPA2, supposedly the safest security setup for a wireless router. Of course they say to only use it to test your own router but there may be a few unscrupulous people who may try it on their neighbour. Also, my connection is used by my daughter-in-law, my son, two grandsons and my son-in-law when the visit and want to use the net. So according to this new law, who is responsible? In other criminal activity if my neighbour takes may car without my permission and hold up a bank or runs over someone I am not held responsible even though the car is registered to me. Does this carry over to IP addresses where someone can easily steal using your connection and thus your IP?

There are so many seemingly vague areas and I’m surprised and disappointed that Teksavvy said they would not fight it in court. I am a Teksavvy client and not affected by this lawsuit.

Sal, I for one would like to see this go all the way to court so some of these questions could be settled. I think Canadians are more leveled headed than the litigious culture to the south. For the same reasons I doubt we will see voltage actually go all the way to a trial, though I won’t rule it out completely. A trial would stand too much a chance of being thrown out or awarding small damages which would kill any hopes of profits from the ‘demand’ letters.

Now, of course, if the true purpose of voltage’s litigation is to protect their intellectual property then the loss of any profit from out of court settlements should not be a concern for them. 0_o

Group actionI’m surprised someone didn’t mention this. Why can’t the plaintiff apply for a group action so that the main/common items be heard in one trial and then just go after each person with the specific details for each case?